Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CANON 18
The legal profession demands a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family and should adopt the norm of practice expected of men of good intentions.
Rules 18.1
A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rules 18.2
A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
A lawyer must keep himself constantly abreast with the trend of authoritative pronouncements and developments in all branches of the law.
Javellana vs. Lutero, 20 SCRA 717 (1967) The full protection of the clients interests requires no less than a mastery of the applicable law and facts involved in a case, regardless of the nature of the assignment and keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the law.
Rules 18.3
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Phil. Bank of Commerce vs. Aruego, C.A.G.R. No. 28274, June 18, 1965
The legal profession is a jealous mistress which demands of a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family. A lawyer is required to exercise ordinary diligence or that a reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, as any member of the bar similarly situated commonly possesses and exercises.
An attorney is not required to exercise extraordinary diligence but only a reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do.
4. Failure to file briefs within the reglementary period (People vs. Cawili, 34 SCRA 728). 5. Failure to attend to trial without filing a motion for postponement or without requesting either of his two partners in the law office to take his place and appear for the defendants (Gaerlan vs. Bernal, G.R. No. L-4049, Jan. 28, 1952). Failure to appear at pre-trial (Agravante vs. Patriarca, 183 SCRA 113). 6. Failure of counsel to notify clients of the scheduled trial which prevented the latter to look to another lawyer to represent them while counsel was in the hospital (Ventura vs. Santos, 59 Phil. 123).
7. Failure to appear simply because the client did not go to counsels office on the date of the trial as was agreed upon (Alcoriza vs. Lumakang, Adm. Case No. 249, November 21, 1978). 8. Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after receiving the amount for the purpose (Capulong vs. Alino, 22 SCRA 491). 9. Failure to take action to have adverse decision reconsidered (PHHC vs. Tiongco, 207 SCRA 153) or failure to appeal the adverse decision (Francisco, Jr. vs. Bosa and Bandong, 205 SCRA 722).
10. Failure to notify the court of counsels change of address resulting in failure to receive judicial orders to the prejudice of the client (Juane vs. Garcia, 25 SCRA 801) 11. Failure to take necessary precaution to insure that he receives all court notices and processes promptly (Javier vs. Madamba, Jr., 174 SCRA 495). 12. Failure to present evidence (Gonzales vs. Presiding Judge of Branch I, RTC of Bohol, 186 SCRA 101). 47 13. Failure to file the required position paper which prejudiced clients cause (Lorenzana Food Corp. vs. Daria, 197 SCRA 249).
(c) Where there is something fishy and suspicious about the actuations of the former counsel of petitioners in the case at bar, in the case he did not give any significance at all to the processes of the court, which has proven prejudicial to the rights of said clients, under a lame and flimsy explanation that the courts processes just escaped his attention, it is held that the said lawyer deprived his clients of their day in court (PHHC vs. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471). (d) Application of the rule, results in the outright deprivation of ones property through a technicality. (Escudero vs. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69, 78)
(e) In the case of an irresponsible lawyer who totally forgot about the case and failed to inform his client of the decision, the Supreme Court held that the client should not be bound by the negligence of the counsel. (Republic vs. Arro, et al., 150 SCRA 630) (f) A party is not bound by the actions of his counsel in case the gross negligence of the counsel resulted in the clients deprivation of his property without due process. (Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418)
(g) The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the appeal for the failure to file the appellants brief on time, it appearing that the appellants former counsel had abandoned him and could not be contacted despite earnest efforts. (Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,250 SCRA 371) (h) The Supreme Court set aside the trial courts order, the same being due to the trial counsels blunder in procedure and gross negligence of existing jurisprudence. (Escudero vs. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69) (i) It was once ruled that the unconscionable failure of a lawyer to inform his client of the receipt of the court order and the motion for execution and to take the appropriate action against either or both to protect his clients rights amounted to connivance with the prevailing party which constituted extrinsic fraud. (Bayog vs. Natino, 258 SCRA 378)
Rules 18.4
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.
The client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by which his interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted.
Avelino v. Palaa
Atty. P failed to inform his clients of the trial. Atty. P is also charged with malpractice for having failed to pursue two (2) motion for new trial -1st motion for new trial : filed out of time -2nd motion for new trial : Atty. P failed to comply with the Courts order on giving notice to adverse party Atty. Ds claim that it was due to "a severe stomach ache is obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in due time of the date of the trial.