Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Negligence of lawyer - October2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

See - October 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG


"x x x.

Attorney; Gross Negligence. Respondent Villaseca was charged for gross and inexcusable negligence in handling a criminal case, as a consequence of which the complainants were convicted. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Villaseca’s failure to submit a demurrer to evidence constitutes inexcusable negligence; it showed his lack of devotion and zeal in preserving his clients’ cause. Furthermore, Atty. Villaseca’s failure to present any testimonial, object or documentary evidence for the defense reveals his lack of diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the Court; it showed his indifference towards the cause of his clients. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his clients were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have exerted efforts to rebut the presented prosecution evidence. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law to support his client’s cause. 

- Mary Ann T. Mattus v. Albert T. Villaseca, A.C. No. 7922, October 1, 2013.

x x x."