Scribd
Upload
55 views

Sources For PALE

The document discusses three cases related to violations of Canon 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The first case involved a lawyer who did not inform their clients that their appeal was not in their favor and still required fees for filing a motion for reconsideration despite knowing it would be belated. The second case involved a lawyer representing a client for nullity of marriage who misrepresented the status of the case, did not actually file anything, but still collected fees. The third case discussed Canon 18.03 and the obligation of lawyers to exercise due diligence in protecting their clients' rights, noting that failure to do so makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust placed in them.

Uploaded by

Denee Vem Matorres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views

Sources For PALE

The document discusses three cases related to violations of Canon 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The first case involved a lawyer who did not inform their clients that their appeal was not in their favor and still required fees for filing a motion for reconsideration despite knowing it would be belated. The second case involved a lawyer representing a client for nullity of marriage who misrepresented the status of the case, did not actually file anything, but still collected fees. The third case discussed Canon 18.03 and the obligation of lawyers to exercise due diligence in protecting their clients' rights, noting that failure to do so makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust placed in them.

Uploaded by

Denee Vem Matorres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/feb2016/ac_10945_2016.

html
A.C. No. 10945
(Formerly CBD 09-2507)
ANGELITO RAMISCAL and MERCEDES ORZAME, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Respondent.
 About violation of Canon 18 (18.03) and 17 of CPRA, which lead to suspension.
 Counsel for nullity of title on property
 Did not inform client that the appeal was not in their favor (unlike in RTC). Still required fees for
filing for MR despite fully knowing that it was already belated.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64841
PIA MARIE B. GO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GRACE C. BURI, RESPONDENT.
 One of the violations, Canon 18 (18.03) which lead to suspension
 Counsel for nullity of marriage
 Misrepresentation, did not file from the beginning, but collected several fees from client.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2003/feb2003/ac_5085.php
Santos vs Lazaro : AC 5085 : February 6, 2003 : J. Bellosillo : Second Division
 Talks more about diligence based on Canon 18.03 of CPRA
 There was a brief discussion:

Canon 18, Rule 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that negligence of


lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable. It is
a basic postulate in legal ethics that when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will
exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed
upon him by his client and makes him answerable to him, to the courts and to society.

NOTE: I guess we can include Canon 18 Rule of CPR in the definition?


Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

You might also like