DEL MUNDO VS.

CAPISTRANO DUTY TO CLIENT

 Lawyer has the duty to devote his actiions to the interest

and protection of his clients. In this case, Capistrano
acted in violation of his duty to the client for failure to
inform Del Mundo on the status of his case, to file the
petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage and
to account and return the funds she entrusted to him.
 This is in line with;
Canon 16: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his profession
 Rule 16.01: a lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client
 Rule 16.02: A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others
kept by him
Canon 18: A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence
 Rule 18.03: A lawayer 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

 Hence, when a lawyer takes a client cause, he covenants

that he will exercise due diligence in protetcing the
client’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of viligance
and attention expected of a good father of family makes
the lawyer unworthy of trust reposed on him by his
clients. Moreover, falling short of this standard, the court
will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawayer by
imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of
sound judicial discretiion in consideration pf the
surrounding facts.

TEJANO VS. BATERINA DUTY TO CLIENT

 Lawyer has the duty to devote his actions to the interest

and protection of his clients. In this case, atty baterina
abandoned his duty when he allowed the proceedings to
run its course without any effort to safeguard his client’s
welfare in the meantime. His failure to file the required
pleadings on his clients’ behalf constitutes gross
negligence in violation of the following:
Canon 18: A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence
 Rule 18.03: A lawayer shall not negkect 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

 Hence, when a lawyer takes a client cause, he make’s

commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the
client’s rights. He is duty bound to serve his client with
 competence and to attend to 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 lawayer’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.

DUTY TO COURT
 A Lawyer has duty to obey its orders and processes and
assists in the administration of justice. In this case, Atty.
Baterina’s reckless disregard for orders and directives of
the courts is unbecoming of a member of the bar. His
conduct has shown that he has little respect for rules,
court processes and even for the courts disciplinary
authority. Not only did he fail to allow the trial’s court’s
order in his clients’ case, he even disregarded court
orders in his own disciplinary proeceedings.
 Lawyers, as this court has emphasized are particularly
called upon to obey court orders and due processes and
are expected to stand foremost in complying with court
directives being themselves officers of the court. As such,
Atty. Baterina should know that a resolution of the court
in this case is not a mere request but an order which
should be complied with promptly and completely.
LUNA VS. GALARITA DUTY TO CLIENT
 Lawyer has the duty to devote his actions to the interest
and protection of his client. In this case, complainant luna
entrusted respondent Atty. Galarita with handling the
civil case involving a mortgaged land in Quezon Province.
However, without complainant Luna’s consent,
respondent Atty. Galarita settled this case with the other
party. Moreove, the latter not only failed to promptly
inform complainant Luna of the former’s receipt of the
P100,000 settlement procceeds but also refused to turn
over the amount to complainant.
These conduct violate the;
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that
“a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Members of the bar must always conducr
themselves in a way that promotes public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession.
Rule 16.01 provides for a lawyer’s duty to account for all
money or property collected or received for or of from the
client.
LEDESMA VS. CLIMACO DUTY TO CLIENT
