21. Emma v. de Juan vs. Atty. Oscar r. Baria III

December 13, 2018 | Author: Earnswell Pacina Tan | Category: Lawyer, Negligence, Public Law, Politics, Virtue
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

21. Emma v. de Juan vs. Atty. Oscar r. Baria III...

Description

EMMA V. DE JUAN vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III FACTS:

Petitioner Petitioner was terminated without notice or explanation explanation so she fled a complaint beore the NLRC against the company or illegal dismissal. In search o a lawyer she as!ed the assistance o  ""C which assigned respondent to handle her labor case. #n $ecember %& '&&& the Labor (rbiter rendered a decision in a)or o complainant. *he Company appealed to the NLRC. In a decision promulgated promulgated on +eptember %, %--' the NLRC re)ersed re)ersed the Labor (rbiter and declared there was no illegal dismissal. Complainant blamed respondent or the re)ersal. +he said that she came to !now o the re)ersal o the Labor (rbiters decision when she called respondent in #ctober %--'. /hen she as!ed the respondent what they should do respondent answered 0Paano iyan iha1eh1hindi a!o marunong gumawa ng 2otion or Reconsideration.3 ISSUE: /hether the respondent committed culpable negligence as would warrant disciplinary action in ailing to fle or the complainant a motion or reconsideration rom the decision o the NLRC.

RULING: Respon esponden dentt is 4IN5$ 4IN5$ with with /(RNIN6 (RNIN6 that that a repet repetiti ition on o the same same will will be dealt dealt with with se)erely.

No lawyer is obliged to ad)ocate or e)ery person who may wish to become his client but once he agrees to ta!e up the cause o a client the lawyer owes fdelity to such cause and must be mindul o the trust and confdence reposed in him. 4urther among the undamental rules o  ethics is the principle that an attorney who underta!es an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination that is until the case becomes fnal and executory. ( lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his ser)ices without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. (ny dereliction o duty by a counsel a7ects the client. *his means that his client is entitled to the beneft o any and e)ery remedy and deense that is authori8ed by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert e)ery such remedy or deense.  *he records re)eal that indeed the respondent respondent did not fle a motion or reconsideration o  the NLRC such that the said decision e)entually had become fnal and executory. Respondent does not reute this. 9is excuse that he did not !now how to fle a motion or reconsideration is lame lame and unacce unaccepta ptable ble.. (ter (ter compla complaina inant nt had expr express essed ed an inter interest est to fle a motion motion or recons econside idera ratio tion n it was was incumb incumbent ent upon upon couns counsel el to dilig diligent ently ly retur return n to his boo!s boo!s and re re amiliari8e himsel with the procedural rules or a motion or reconsideration. 4iling a motion or reconsideration reconsideration is not a complicated legal tas!. (n attorney may only retire rom the case either by a written consent o his client or by permission permission o the court ater due notice and hearing in which e)ent the attorney should see to it that the name o the new attorney is recorded recorded in the case. Respondent Respondent did not comply with these obligations. 0Negligence o lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them or handling shall render them liable.3

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF