Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Dolores C. Belleza, Vs Atty. Alan S. Macasa

    Uploaded by

    Dah Rin
    Atty. Macasa was hired by Dolores Belleza to represent her son who was arrested for a drug violation. Dolores paid Atty. Macasa P30,000 in partial payments but Atty. Macasa failed to use P18,000 of the funds to post a bond for her son's provisional liberty. He also did not provide any receipts and ignored Dolores' demands to return the money. Additionally, Atty. Macasa did not take any meaningful action on the criminal case and abandoned it, forcing Dolores to hire a public attorney instead. The court ruled that Atty. Macasa was grossly negligent in his duties by failing to use the funds as intended, neglecting the case, and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dolores C. Belleza, Vs Atty. Alan S. Macasa

    Uploaded by

    Dah Rin
    69 views2 pages
    Atty. Macasa was hired by Dolores Belleza to represent her son who was arrested for a drug violation. Dolores paid Atty. Macasa P30,000 in partial payments but Atty. Macasa failed to use P18,000 of the funds to post a bond for her son's provisional liberty. He also did not provide any receipts and ignored Dolores' demands to return the money. Additionally, Atty. Macasa did not take any meaningful action on the criminal case and abandoned it, forcing Dolores to hire a public attorney instead. The court ruled that Atty. Macasa was grossly negligent in his duties by failing to use the funds as intended, neglecting the case, and

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    LE 56_Bellezavs.Macasa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Macasa was hired by Dolores Belleza to represent her son who was arrested for a drug violation. Dolores paid Atty. Macasa P30,000 in partial payments but Atty. Macasa failed to use P18,000 of the funds to post a bond for her son's provisional liberty. He also did not provide any receipts and ignored Dolores' demands to return the money. Additionally, Atty. Macasa did not take any meaningful action on the criminal case and abandoned it, forcing Dolores to hire a public attorney instead. The court ruled that Atty. Macasa was grossly negligent in his duties by failing to use the funds as intended, neglecting the case, and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views2 pages

    Dolores C. Belleza, Vs Atty. Alan S. Macasa

    Uploaded by

    Dah Rin
    Atty. Macasa was hired by Dolores Belleza to represent her son who was arrested for a drug violation. Dolores paid Atty. Macasa P30,000 in partial payments but Atty. Macasa failed to use P18,000 of the funds to post a bond for her son's provisional liberty. He also did not provide any receipts and ignored Dolores' demands to return the money. Additionally, Atty. Macasa did not take any meaningful action on the criminal case and abandoned it, forcing Dolores to hire a public attorney instead. The court ruled that Atty. Macasa was grossly negligent in his duties by failing to use the funds as intended, neglecting the case, and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    DOLORES C. BELLEZA, vs ATTY. ALAN S.

    MACASA,
    A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009

     Facts:
     
    Chua, friend of Dolores referred Atty. Macasa, for legal services in connection with the arrest of her son
    for Violation of RA 9165. Atty. Macasa agreed to handle the case for P30,000.00. Dolores made 3 partial
    payments on different occasions and P18, 000 purpose of posting a bond to secure the liberty of his son;
    however no receipt was issued by Atty. Macasa. Dolores found out that Atty. Macasa did not remit the
    amount to the court supposed to be intended for the provisional liberty of her son. She demanded the
    return of P18, 000 several times but respondent ignored her. Moreover, Atty. Macasa failed to act on the
    case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail the services of a PAO lawyer.
     
    Issue:
    Whether or not Atty. Macasa grossly neglected his duties for the cause of his client.

    Ruling:
    Yes. Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainant’s son. A lawyer who
    accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and
    effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, constantly
    striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in
    the maintenance and defense of his clients rights and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability
    to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied.

    A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his
    client with competence and diligence. He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from such
    relationship. He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following
    representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability other lawyers similarly
    situated possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation
    entrusted to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use of his skill and in the
    application of his knowledge to his clients cause; and that he will take all steps necessary to adequately
    safeguard his clients interest.

    A lawyer’s negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel
    and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant,
    particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer’s lethargy
    in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical.
     
    In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainant’s son and receiving his
    attorney’s fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance.
    For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on account of
    respondents continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorney’s
    Office. Respondent’s lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainant’s son was reprehensible. Not
    only did it prejudice complainant’s son, it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel.
    Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional
    liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latter’s constitutional right to bail.
     
     
     

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy