Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 257 views

    Perea Vs Almadro

    Uploaded by

    Areen Agdon
    1) Respondent Atty. Almadro was the counsel for complainant Edgar Perea, who was charged with frustrated homicide. 2) Respondent failed to file any demurrer which resulted in Perea's arrest and having to post bail. Respondent also failed to attend hearings. 3) Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for gross neglect of his duties. Respondent was found guilty of serious neglect and open disrespect for the court. 4) Respondent was suspended from practice for one year and fined P10,000, with a warning of more severe punishment for future dishonest acts.

    Copyright:

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

    Perea Vs Almadro

    Uploaded by

    Areen Agdon
    257 views14 pages
    1) Respondent Atty. Almadro was the counsel for complainant Edgar Perea, who was charged with frustrated homicide. 2) Respondent failed to file any demurrer which resulted in Perea's arrest and having to post bail. Respondent also failed to attend hearings. 3) Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for gross neglect of his duties. Respondent was found guilty of serious neglect and open disrespect for the court. 4) Respondent was suspended from practice for one year and fined P10,000, with a warning of more severe punishment for future dishonest acts.

    Original Description:

    case digest ppt

    Original Title

    Perea vs Almadro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Respondent Atty. Almadro was the counsel for complainant Edgar Perea, who was charged with frustrated homicide. 2) Respondent failed to file any demurrer which resulted in Perea's arrest and having to post bail. Respondent also failed to attend hearings. 3) Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for gross neglect of his duties. Respondent was found guilty of serious neglect and open disrespect for the court. 4) Respondent was suspended from practice for one year and fined P10,000, with a warning of more severe punishment for future dishonest acts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    257 views14 pages

    Perea Vs Almadro

    Uploaded by

    Areen Agdon
    1) Respondent Atty. Almadro was the counsel for complainant Edgar Perea, who was charged with frustrated homicide. 2) Respondent failed to file any demurrer which resulted in Perea's arrest and having to post bail. Respondent also failed to attend hearings. 3) Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for gross neglect of his duties. Respondent was found guilty of serious neglect and open disrespect for the court. 4) Respondent was suspended from practice for one year and fined P10,000, with a warning of more severe punishment for future dishonest acts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 14

    EDGAR PEREA

    vs. ATTY. RUBEN


    ALMADRO
    A.C. No. 5246
    March 20, 2003
    FACTS:
    Respondent, Atty. Almadro was the
    counsel of the complainant, Perea.
    Complainant was charged before the
    RTC of QC with the crime of frustrated
    homicide.
    Respondent failed to file any demurrer which
    resulted to the arrest of the complainant.
    This prompted the complainant to post bail.
    In addition, respondent failed to attend the
    hearings.
    Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment
    against respondent for gross neglect of his duties
    as a lawyer.
    Respondent filed three motions for extensions of time to file comment.
    The court resolved to grant the said motions with a warning that no further
    extensions shall be granted. Through the law firm Sua and
    Alambra, respondent filed a manifestation and motion that
    respondent has not yet received a copy of the complaint
    hence it asked the court to order the complainant to furnish
    them a copy.
    According to the Respondent,

    1. Because of some circumstances, he believed that the


    drafts have been finalized and the edited versions
    accordingly filed.
    2. His time and attention was spent in the performance of his
    demanding job:
    a. He was preoccupied with the congressional elections
    in Biliran.
    b. He accepted an offer in PSE
    IBP: Respondent is guilty of serious neglect or
    indifference to his duties as a lawyer and open
    disrespect for the court and the authority it
    represents.
    ISSUE:
    Whether Atty. Almadro committed gross neglect
    of his duties as lawyer of complainant.
    HELD:
    Yes, respondent Atty. Almadro guilty of serious
    neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open
    disrespect for the court and the authority it
    represents, as embodied in Canon 18, Rules
    18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of
    the Code of Professional Responsibility
    CANON 18 --- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
    diligence.

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

    Rule 18.04 --- A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
    case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
    information.
    It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence
    and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect
    within the bounds of law the interest of his client.

    A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to


    him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render
    him liable for disciplinary action.
    CANON 10--- A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith
    to the court.

    Rule 10.01 ---A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor


    consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or
    allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
    In Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs Atty. Flores, the
    Court, aside from citing Canon 10 above stated that "a lawyer
    must be a disciple of truth." Indeed, it cannot be stressed
    enough how important it is for a lawyer as an officer of the
    court to observe honesty at all times, especially before the
    courts.
    Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
    (1) year and FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand
    (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a WARNING that any or similar
    acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.

    You might also like