AC No.

69013

Atty. Capistrano was held to neglect his client’s interest by failure to inform del Mundo of the status of her case and to file the
agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. The IBP-CBD also concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had
promised to return showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanour. He was guilty of violating
Canon 18 (18.03 and 18.04) and Canon 16 (16.01 and 16.02) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the
trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and
society. A lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to the courts, society, clients and legal profession.

AC No. 8235

Despite of the reason that he had been recuperating from a kidney transplant and his suspension of the Court from the practice of
law for 2 years, the Court found Atty. Baterina guilty of gross negligence. Once a lawyer’s services are engaged, “he is duty bound
to serve his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity
to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.” A lawyer’s acceptance to take up a case
“impliedly stipulates that he will carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory.

Atty. Baterina’s duty to his clients did not automatically cease with his suspension. At the very least, such suspension gave him a
concomitant responsibilty to inform his clients that he would be unable to attend to their case and advise them to retain another
counsel.

AC No. 10662

Luna alleged that Atty. Galarrita never informed him of the Compromise Agreement, and did not deliver to him the P 100,000
settlement proceeds Atty. Galarrita had received. Atty. Galarrita argued that he entered the CA by virtue of a Special Power of
Attorney. He submitted that Luna ‘slept’ on his rights. He also argued for an application on retaining lien and also raised the two-
year prescription under Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of PRocedure of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.

Article 1878 provides that SPAs are necessary to compromise. The Rules of Court thus requires lawyers to secure special authority
from their clients when entering into a CA that dispenses with litigation. There were reasons to believe that the Luna did not give any
authority and additionally,the authority given therein to respondent to enter into a possible settlement referred only to possible
settlement that could be secured or firmed up during the preliminary conference or pre-trial of the case.

In several cases, lawyers were disciplined for refusing to remit amounts received for and on behalf of their clients in violation of
Canon 16. The Ronquillo v. Atty. Cezar case was clarified that action for civil liability and disciplinary proceedings will be accounted
separately only if the claimed liabilities are purely civil in nature which is separate and distinct and not intrinsically linked to his
professional engagement.