Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. A.C. 9976, June 25, 2014 - SAMARITA

    Uploaded by

    Evander Arcenal
    234 views2 pages
    The complainant hired the respondent attorney to file a petition for annulment of her marriage for a fee of P195,000. However, the respondent did not file the petition until over a year later. The respondent also borrowed P200,000 from the complainant with a promise to repay it with interest, but issued postdated checks that were dishonored when presented. The court held that (1) the respondent was guilty of delaying the filing of the annulment petition in violation of his duties of fidelity and diligence to his client, and (2) by issuing worthless checks, the respondent violated his duty of honesty and engaged in unlawful conduct according to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    14. Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. A.C. 9976, June 25, 2014 - SAMARITA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The complainant hired the respondent attorney to file a petition for annulment of her marriage for a fee of P195,000. However, the respondent did not file the petition until over a year later. The respondent also borrowed P200,000 from the complainant with a promise to repay it with interest, but issued postdated checks that were dishonored when presented. The court held that (1) the respondent was guilty of delaying the filing of the annulment petition in violation of his duties of fidelity and diligence to his client, and (2) by issuing worthless checks, the respondent violated his duty of honesty and engaged in unlawful conduct according to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    234 views2 pages

    Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. A.C. 9976, June 25, 2014 - SAMARITA

    Uploaded by

    Evander Arcenal
    The complainant hired the respondent attorney to file a petition for annulment of her marriage for a fee of P195,000. However, the respondent did not file the petition until over a year later. The respondent also borrowed P200,000 from the complainant with a promise to repay it with interest, but issued postdated checks that were dishonored when presented. The court held that (1) the respondent was guilty of delaying the filing of the annulment petition in violation of his duties of fidelity and diligence to his client, and (2) by issuing worthless checks, the respondent violated his duty of honesty and engaged in unlawful conduct according to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ALMIRA C. FORONDA VS. ATTY. JOSE ALVAREZ, JR.

    A.C. NO. 9976, JUNE 25, 2014

    FACTS:

    The complainant is an overseas Filipino worker based in Dubai. During her vacation in
    the Philippines in May 2008, she contracted the services of respondent to file a petition
    for the annulment of her marriage for an agreed packaged fee of P195,000.00 which she
    paid in full by June 2008. Respondent, however, filed the petition for the annulment of
    her marriage only in July 2009.

    In June 2008, respondent obtained P200,000.00 from complainant with the promise to
    pay the same with interest at 4% per month starting July 2008 until June 2009.
    Respondent issued complainant eleven (11) checks for P8,000.00 each postdated checks
    monthly from 10 July 2008 until 10 May 2009 plus a check for P108,000.00 payable on
    10 June 2009 and another check for P100,000.00 payable on 8 June 2009. When
    presented for payment, the first two (2) checks were good but the rest of the checks were
    dishonored for being drawn against a closed account.

    When complainant demanded payment, respondent issued to her eight (8) new
    replacement postdated checks dated 25th of every month from June 2009 to January
    2010. All of the replacement checks, however, were likewise dishonored for being drawn
    against a closed account. When respondent was unable to pay respondent, complainant
    filed a criminal complaint against him for violation of BP 22 before the Office of the City
    Prosecutor of Muntinlupa. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed after
    complainant executed an affidavit of desistance after she was paid a certain amount by
    respondent.

    ISSUE:

    a) Whether or not the respondent is guilty of delay in filing of the petition for
    annulment of marriage of the complainant.
    b) Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
    Responsibility when he failed to settle his obligation to the complainant.

    HELD:

    a) YES, for delaying in filing the petition for complainant, respondent should be
    deemed guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility;

    Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
    mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
    Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
    Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
    cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.” “He is
    required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal,
    care and utmost devotion.” “A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor
    not only protects the interest of his client, he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to
    the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.

    b) YES, The respondent’s act of issuing worthless checks is a violation of Rule 1.01
    of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that “a lawyer shall not
    engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The issuance of
    checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
    account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him,
    shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him
    unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

    It cannot be denied that the respondent’s unfulfilled promise to settle his obligation and
    the issuance of worthless checks have seriously breached the complainant’s trust. She
    went so far as to file multiple criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against him.
    “The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility provides that ‘a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
    loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.’ Necessity and public interest
    enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with his client.

    You might also like