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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 284 views

    Borbon vs. Ca Digest

    Uploaded by

    M. CoCo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counsel failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. The counsel sought multiple extensions to file an appellant's brief but failed to submit the brief within the allotted time periods. This resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner's case. The Court found the counsel's lack of attention to his duties to be gross and prejudicial to his client. The counsel was ordered to explain why he should not face administrative liability for his actions and omissions.

    Copyright:

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

    Borbon vs. Ca Digest

    Uploaded by

    M. CoCo
    284 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counsel failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. The counsel sought multiple extensions to file an appellant's brief but failed to submit the brief within the allotted time periods. This resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner's case. The Court found the counsel's lack of attention to his duties to be gross and prejudicial to his client. The counsel was ordered to explain why he should not face administrative liability for his actions and omissions.

    Original Title

    BORBON VS. CA DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counsel failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. The counsel sought multiple extensions to file an appellant's brief but failed to submit the brief within the allotted time periods. This resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner's case. The Court found the counsel's lack of attention to his duties to be gross and prejudicial to his client. The counsel was ordered to explain why he should not face administrative liability for his actions and omissions.

    Copyright:

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

    Borbon vs. Ca Digest

    Uploaded by

    M. CoCo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counsel failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. The counsel sought multiple extensions to file an appellant's brief but failed to submit the brief within the allotted time periods. This resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner's case. The Court found the counsel's lack of attention to his duties to be gross and prejudicial to his client. The counsel was ordered to explain why he should not face administrative liability for his actions and omissions.

    Copyright:

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

    BORBON VS.

    CA
    G.R. No. 138495
    December 9, 2004

    FACTS:

    Antonio Borbon, who owned a lot in Makati, was represented by his brother because he
    was found by the CFI to be suffering from chronic schizophrenia and therefore, an incompetent.
    The Philippine National Bank (PNB) was appointed as his guardian. Later on, the CFI declared
    that Antonio Borbon was competent and then they terminated PNB’s guardianship. Petitioner
    then sold different portions of his lot to the respondents of this case. Candido Borbon, who is
    the brother of the petitioner, alleged in the complaint that the actions against the subject
    property are all void because of lack of consent on his part as the petitioner was then suffering
    from acute schizophrenia.

    The trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent. The petitioner was
    allowed to appeal. The court then required him to file the appellant's brief within the given
    period. Petitioner asked for an extension of period to file for the appellant’s brief which they
    failed to comply which was considered abandoned, resulting to the dismissal of the case.
    Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of this Order. Later, they filed a motion to
    admit that they were late by 159 days within which to file the appellant's brief.

    ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner's counsel exercised due diligence in protecting the interest of
    his client.

    RULING:

    NO. Petitioner's counsel failed to exercise due diligence in protecting the interest of his
    client, to the latter's prejudice. His lack of devotion to duty is so gross and palpable which
    warrants disciplinary action. We frown upon lawyer's practice of repeatedly seeking extensions
    of time to file pleadings and thereafter simply let the period lapse without submitting any
    pleading or even any explanation or manifestation of their failure. Canon 18 likewise provides
    that "A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." Counsel for petitioner, is
    hereby required to show cause in writing, within ten (10) days from notice, why he should not
    be held administratively liable for his acts and omissions

    You might also like