Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    S06C03 - CI - Cerilla vs. Lezama

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    Cerilla filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Lezama with the IBP, alleging that he entered into a compromise agreement to sell her property for P350,000 without her consent. Atty. Lezama denied the allegations. The IBP recommended suspending Atty. Lezama for 2 years for violating Canons 15 and 17. The court affirmed the suspension, finding that Atty. Lezama failed to observe candor, fairness and loyalty to his client and was unfaithful to the trust and confidence placed in him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    S06C03 - CI - Cerilla vs. Lezama

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    33 views1 page
    Cerilla filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Lezama with the IBP, alleging that he entered into a compromise agreement to sell her property for P350,000 without her consent. Atty. Lezama denied the allegations. The IBP recommended suspending Atty. Lezama for 2 years for violating Canons 15 and 17. The court affirmed the suspension, finding that Atty. Lezama failed to observe candor, fairness and loyalty to his client and was unfaithful to the trust and confidence placed in him.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    S06C03_CI_Cerilla vs. Lezama

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cerilla filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Lezama with the IBP, alleging that he entered into a compromise agreement to sell her property for P350,000 without her consent. Atty. Lezama denied the allegations. The IBP recommended suspending Atty. Lezama for 2 years for violating Canons 15 and 17. The court affirmed the suspension, finding that Atty. Lezama failed to observe candor, fairness and loyalty to his client and was unfaithful to the trust and confidence placed in him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    S06C03 - CI - Cerilla vs. Lezama

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    Cerilla filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Lezama with the IBP, alleging that he entered into a compromise agreement to sell her property for P350,000 without her consent. Atty. Lezama denied the allegations. The IBP recommended suspending Atty. Lezama for 2 years for violating Canons 15 and 17. The court affirmed the suspension, finding that Atty. Lezama failed to observe candor, fairness and loyalty to his client and was unfaithful to the trust and confidence placed in him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cerilla vs. Atty.

    Lezama

    Facts:
    On Nov. 22, 2010, complainant Cerilla filed an administrative for gross misconduct
    against respondent Atty. Lezama with the IBP. Complainant said that on the basis of SPA,
    respondent entered into a compromise agreement to sell the subject property of the complainant
    for P350,000 without the consent or special authority from her.
    Cerilla contended that Atty. Lezama misrepresented in paragraph 2 of the Compromise
    Agreement that she was willing to sell the subject property for P350,000. In addition, the
    complainant prayed for the respondent’s suspension or disbarment.
    In his answer, Atty. Lezama denied complainant’s allegation that he misrepresented in
    the said compromise agreement. Further, Atty. Lezama stated that the payment for the property
    in the amount of P350,000 was under the custody of the MTC of Sibulan.
    The IBP recommended the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law
    for 2 years.

    Issue:
    W/N the respondent violated Canons 15 and 17 of the CPR?
    Ruling:
    YES. The court affirmed the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
    CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and
    transactions with his client.
    CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
    trust and confidence reposed in him.
    Hence, rhe respondent was being suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.

    You might also like