Case Digest: Elisa Venterez, Genero de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon De Vera, Complainants, v. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme , Respondent | A.C. No. 7421, 10 October 2007

Elisa Venterez, Genero de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon De Vera, Complainants, v. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme , Respondent
A.C. No. 7421, 10 October 2007

Facts:
Venterez and friends hired Atty. Cosme as counsel for a land title dispute. The court ruled against the complainants. They wanted to file a motion of reconsideration but Atty. Cosme failed or refused to do so. Because of this, the complainants were constrained to contact another lawyer to prepare the motion for reconsideration.

Atty. Cosme claims that the son of one of the complainants informed him that the complainants were withdrawing the case from him because he (the son) engaged another lawyer to take over the case. Atty. Cosme further explained that he even turned over the records of the case to the son, ceased to be counsel of the complainants.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of the Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Held:
The Supreme Court find the respondent guilty of violating Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the CPR for abandoning the complainant’s case without a good cause. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event, the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.

For failing to protect the interests of the complainants, the respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.

The Supreme Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of three months.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest for Article 91 of the Family Code: Munoz v. Ramirez and Carlos

FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO CARLOS, Respondents G.R. No. 156125, 25 August 2010 FACTS: The residential lot in the subject property was registered in the name of Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On 6 April 1989, Eliseo, a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, mortgaged said lot, with Erlinda’s consent, to the GSIS to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan, payable within twenty (20) years, through monthly salary deductions of P1,687.66. The respondents then constructed a thirty-six (36)-square meter, two-story residential house on the lot. On 14 July 1993, the title to the subject property was transferred to the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 30 April 1992, executed by Erlinda, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of Eliseo, for a stated consideration of P602,000.00. On 24 September 1993, the respondents filed a complaint with the RTC for the nullification of the deed of absolute sa
Read more

Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978 Facts:     The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.     Edilion contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues and that as a consequence of this, compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admi
Read more

Case Digest: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 Facts:     Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.     It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prosp
Read more