Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 112 views

    56 SCRA 30 Jose Alcala Vs Honesto de Vera: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Celver Joy Gaviola Tamparia
    Jose Alcala hired attorney Honesto De Vera to represent him in a civil case. The court ruled against Alcala but De Vera failed to inform him of the adverse decision, allowing the period to appeal to lapse. Alcala filed a case against De Vera for damages and a disbarment case. The court found that while De Vera was negligent, Alcala did not suffer damages. De Vera was still severely censured for his negligence as an attorney has a duty to keep a client informed. Not all attorney negligence necessarily results in damages owed to the client.

    Copyright:

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

    56 SCRA 30 Jose Alcala Vs Honesto de Vera: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Celver Joy Gaviola Tamparia
    112 views1 page
    Jose Alcala hired attorney Honesto De Vera to represent him in a civil case. The court ruled against Alcala but De Vera failed to inform him of the adverse decision, allowing the period to appeal to lapse. Alcala filed a case against De Vera for damages and a disbarment case. The court found that while De Vera was negligent, Alcala did not suffer damages. De Vera was still severely censured for his negligence as an attorney has a duty to keep a client informed. Not all attorney negligence necessarily results in damages owed to the client.

    Original Description:

    Legal Ethics case

    Original Title

    56 SCRA 30

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jose Alcala hired attorney Honesto De Vera to represent him in a civil case. The court ruled against Alcala but De Vera failed to inform him of the adverse decision, allowing the period to appeal to lapse. Alcala filed a case against De Vera for damages and a disbarment case. The court found that while De Vera was negligent, Alcala did not suffer damages. De Vera was still severely censured for his negligence as an attorney has a duty to keep a client informed. Not all attorney negligence necessarily results in damages owed to the client.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    112 views1 page

    56 SCRA 30 Jose Alcala Vs Honesto de Vera: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Celver Joy Gaviola Tamparia
    Jose Alcala hired attorney Honesto De Vera to represent him in a civil case. The court ruled against Alcala but De Vera failed to inform him of the adverse decision, allowing the period to appeal to lapse. Alcala filed a case against De Vera for damages and a disbarment case. The court found that while De Vera was negligent, Alcala did not suffer damages. De Vera was still severely censured for his negligence as an attorney has a duty to keep a client informed. Not all attorney negligence necessarily results in damages owed to the client.

    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 1

    56 SCRA 30

    JOSE ALCALA
    Vs
    HONESTO DE VERA

    FACTS:

    Jose Alcala engaged the services of Atty. Honesto De Vera to defend him in a civil
    case.
    On April 17, 1963, the court rendered a decision against Alcala.
    On April 19, 1963, Atty. De Vera received a copy of the adverse decision. Atty. De
    Vera failed to inform Alcala about the adverse decision.
    On July 17, 1963, the court sheriff went to Alcala to serve a writ of execution. That
    was the only time when Alcala learned that he lost. And because of Atty. De Veras failure to
    inform him of the adverse decision, the period within which Alcala can appeal his case had
    already lapsed.
    As a result, in September 1963, Alcala filed a civil case against Atty. De Vera in order
    to collect damages as he averred that he sustained damages due to Atty. De Veras
    negligence. The court however ruled that Alcala is not entitled to damages.
    Unfettered, Alcala filed a disbarment case against Atty. De Vera.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Atty. De Vera should be disbarred because of his failure to update his
    client of the status of the case.

    HELD:
    No. Disbarment is not warranted in this case. It is true that Atty. De Vera had been
    remiss in his duties as counsel for Alcala because he failed to update him of the status of the
    case, however, it appears that Alcala did not sustain any damage by reason of such
    negligence. But this is not to say that Atty. De Vera can go scot-free. The lack of damage to
    Alcala will only serve as a mitigating circumstance. The Supreme Court found Atty. De Vera
    guilty of simple negligence and he was severely censured for his negligence. Atty. De
    Veras failure to notify his clients of the decision in question manifests a lack of total dedication
    or devotion to the clients interest expected of Atty. De Vera under the lawyers oath.
    In this case, it can also be gleaned that not all negligence by counsel entitles the client
    to collect damages from the negligent lawyer.

    You might also like