Scribd
Upload
116 views22 pages

Maria Luz Atienza

This document summarizes a legal malpractice case brought by Maria Luz Atienza against lawyer Vicente Evangelista. Atienza alleged that Evangelista was negligent in handling her case against her husband. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence that Evangelista violated his duties. The record showed that Evangelista diligently handled the case, attending numerous hearings. Atienza's case was ultimately dismissed because her witnesses failed to submit to cross-examination. Therefore, the complaint against Evangelista was dismissed.

Uploaded by

salpandita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
116 views22 pages

Maria Luz Atienza

This document summarizes a legal malpractice case brought by Maria Luz Atienza against lawyer Vicente Evangelista. Atienza alleged that Evangelista was negligent in handling her case against her husband. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence that Evangelista violated his duties. The record showed that Evangelista diligently handled the case, attending numerous hearings. Atienza's case was ultimately dismissed because her witnesses failed to submit to cross-examination. Therefore, the complaint against Evangelista was dismissed.

Uploaded by

salpandita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

MARIA LUZ

ATIENZA,
Complainant
, vs.
VICENTEEVANGEL
ISTA,
Respondent
.
A.M. No. 1517
November 29,
1977FERNANDO,
J
.
library
!RINCI!LES
LEGAL
MALPRACTICE
FACTS
In a complaint fled wit
tis Co!rt by Maria L!"
Atien"a, respondent
V"#e$%e
Ev&$'e(")%&, &
member o* %+e !
+"(""$e -&r,
&)#+&r'e/ "%
+
0$ro*e))"o$&(
#o$/0#%
0$be#om"$' &
membero* %+e
b&r.
It was alle#ed tat e
was remiss in attendin#
to er case wit
teManila City $iscal
%s &'ce
notwitstandin# is
avin# been
retainedand paid (or is
services. )e was re*!
ired to answer. Tat
e did. Tere was an
admission on is
part o( is avin# been
retained, b!te denied
any imp!tation o( lac+
o( d!e dili#ence in
per(ormin# tele#al
services re*!ired
o( im.)e asserted tat
e ad always cond!
cted imsel( in a
mannerepected
o( a lawyer. Tis
notwitstandin#, tere
was arecommendation
by te investi#atin#
fscal tat te case be
dropped(or ins!'ciency
o( evidence. Ten and
tere, complainant
dispensedwit is
services and sortly
terea(ter too+ (rom
im all te
papersconnected wit
s!c a case. It was is
ass!mption tere(ore
tat e-was no lon#er !
nder obli#ation to
participate in any
proceedin#
inconnection wit said
case. Tat d!ty ad
been si(ted to te
newlawyer o( Mrs.
Atien"a in te case
involvin# er !sband.-
virt!allawlaw
libraryI/E0 1eter
te respondent was
wil(!lly ne#li#ent in
teper(ormance o( is
d!ties as co!nsel to te
complainant to
tedama#e and pre2!
dice
o( te latter.)EL30Mem
bersip in te bar is an
eactin# responsibility.
It is, to *!ote(rom 4!stice
Cardo"o, -a privile#e b!
rdened wit
conditions.-
1
Itimposes, at te very
least, te obli#ation
o( attendin# wit d!e
"ealand dili#ence to a
client%s ca!se.As a r!
le, an attorney en2oys
te le#al pres!mption
tat e isinnocent
o( te car#es !ntil te
contrary is proved, and,
as ano'cer o( te co!rt,
e as per(ormed is
d!ty in accordance wit
isoat.. T!s, in every
case o( disbarment te
b!rden o( proo( lies
witte complainant to
sow tat te
respondent is #!ilty
o( te actscar#ed. In
te present case,
tere is no s!'cient
evidence sowin#tat
te respondent lawyer
violated is oat or was
ne#li#ent inandlin#
te complainant%s
case. Te respondent
personallyprepared te
complaint o( Mrs.
Atien"a and fled tis
wit te $iscal%s&'ce.
1en te case was set
(or preliminary
investi#ation, e
waspresent in no less
tan 56 sced!led
earin#s. )e presented
aswitnesses te
complainant and (o!r
oter persons. Tese
(acts areome by te
case record and
admitted by te
complainant.
Tecomplainant%s
case was dismissed
apparently beca!se
o( te (ail!reo( te
complainant%s
witnesses to s!bmit to
cross7eamination.Eva
n#elista was, t!s,
constrained to s!bmit
te case on te basis
o( te evidence already
on record. Tese (acts
do not
indicatene#li#ence on
te Part
o( te respondent. Te
complainant wo
waspresent d!rin# te
earin# was (!lly aware
tat se still ad
topresent two o( er
witnesses
(or cross7eamination
on te netsced!led
earin#.-law libraryAs
to te alle#ation by
complainant tat
respondent did not
in(ormer tat te case
ad been dismissed
and tat e did notin#
toremedy te same,
te record does not s!
pport tis
claim. Atien"aalso
confrms tat se
terminated
te respondent%s
services. Te concl!
din# para#rap o( te
report (ollows0 -Te
complainta#ainst te
respondent Atty.
8icente Evan#elists as
not beenestablised by
competent evidence.
Te dismissal o( Mrs.
Atien"a%scase is not
imp!table to
respondent.
A member o* %
+e b&r #&$$o
%be )0be#%e/
%o %+e er"( o*
/")b&rme$
% )"m(
be#&0)e
o*/e#")"o$
&/ver)e %o +")
#("e$%.
Te serio!s conse*!
ence o(disbarment or s!
spension so!ld (ollow
only were tere is
a clearpreponderance
o( evidence sowin#
te basis
tereo(.- Accordin#ly,t
e recommendation was
(or te dismissal o( te
complaint. Tis Co!rt is
in a#reement. It wo!ld
be to place an
intolerableb!rden on a
member o( te bar i( 2!
st beca!se a client
2ailed toobtain wat is
so!#t by er a(ter d!e
eertion o( te re*!ired
e9orton is part, e wo!
ld be eld acco!ntable.
!ccess in a liti#ation
iscertainly not te test
o( weter or not
a lawyer ad lived !p to
isd!ties to a client. It is
eno!# tat wit te
toro!# preparation
o(te case andled by
im, e ad ta+en all
te steps to prosec!te
iss!it. I( terea(ter te
res!lt wo!ld be te (r!
stration o( is client
%sopes, tat is a ca!
se (or disappointment,
no do!bt (or im no
lesstan (or is client,
b!t not (or disciplinary
action. )e is more
to besympati"ed wit
tan condemned 7
on te ass!mption
o( co!rsetat e did
wat was epected
o( im. law library
DIS!OSITIVE
1)ERE$&RE,
te complaint a#ainst
Attorney
8icenteEvan#elists is
dismissed. Let a
copy o( tis resol!tion
be spread onis record.

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