Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    Canon 18: Pitcher Vs Gagate Complainant: Mrs. Ma. Cristina Pitcher Respondent: Atty. Rustico Gagate Facts

    Uploaded by

    CofeelovesIronman Javier
    The Supreme Court suspended the respondent lawyer for 3 years for failing to properly represent his client. The respondent caused the locks to be changed at his client's husband's business, leading to criminal charges against the client. The respondent then advised the client to hide and abandoned her case without filing necessary motions. The Court found the respondent failed to exercise due diligence and proper representation, violating the client's trust placed in lawyers.

    Copyright:

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

    Canon 18: Pitcher Vs Gagate Complainant: Mrs. Ma. Cristina Pitcher Respondent: Atty. Rustico Gagate Facts

    Uploaded by

    CofeelovesIronman Javier
    89 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court suspended the respondent lawyer for 3 years for failing to properly represent his client. The respondent caused the locks to be changed at his client's husband's business, leading to criminal charges against the client. The respondent then advised the client to hide and abandoned her case without filing necessary motions. The Court found the respondent failed to exercise due diligence and proper representation, violating the client's trust placed in lawyers.

    Original Description:

    ghruty

    Original Title

    Amboy Gagate

    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 suspended the respondent lawyer for 3 years for failing to properly represent his client. The respondent caused the locks to be changed at his client's husband's business, leading to criminal charges against the client. The respondent then advised the client to hide and abandoned her case without filing necessary motions. The Court found the respondent failed to exercise due diligence and proper representation, violating the client's trust placed in lawyers.

    Copyright:

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

    Canon 18: Pitcher Vs Gagate Complainant: Mrs. Ma. Cristina Pitcher Respondent: Atty. Rustico Gagate Facts

    Uploaded by

    CofeelovesIronman Javier
    The Supreme Court suspended the respondent lawyer for 3 years for failing to properly represent his client. The respondent caused the locks to be changed at his client's husband's business, leading to criminal charges against the client. The respondent then advised the client to hide and abandoned her case without filing necessary motions. The Court found the respondent failed to exercise due diligence and proper representation, violating the client's trust placed in lawyers.

    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

    Canon 18

    Pitcher vs Gagate
    Complainant: Mrs. Ma. Cristina Pitcher
    Respondent: Atty. Rustico Gagate
    FACTS:

    Mrs.
    Pitcher
    engaged
    the
    services of Atty. Gagate for the
    settlement
    of
    the
    40%
    shareholdings owned by her
    deceased husband in Consulting
    Edge in the Philippines.
    Due
    to
    disagreements
    of
    complainant with the major
    stockholder of Consulting Edge
    (Bantegui) , Atty. Gagate without
    the consent of Bantegui caused
    the change of door locks and
    paper seal in the office of
    Consulting Edge, Inc, which
    prevented the employees from
    entering the building and carrying
    on the operations of the
    company.
    Bantegui
    filed
    a
    criminal
    complaint of grave coercion
    against Mrs. Pitcher and her
    counsel.
    Respondent advised Mrs. Pitcher
    to file a civil cases against
    Bantegui for the recovery of
    husbands
    personal
    records/business
    interest
    in
    Consulting Edge Inc. Mrs. Pitcher
    agreed and paid respondent
    P150,000 of acceptance fee.
    When warrant of arrest was
    issued against Mrs. Pitcher and

    respondent, the latter advised


    Mrs. Pitcher to hide until the
    respondent
    filed
    necessary
    motions in court.
    Thereafter, Mrs. Pitcher did not
    see respondent again despite her
    diligent
    effort
    to
    talk
    to
    respondent about the case. Thus,
    Mrs.
    Pitcher
    filed
    an
    administrative case against Atty.
    Gagate before the IBP-CBD

    IBP-CBD: respondent failed to


    safeguard complainants legitimate
    interest and abandoned her in the
    grave coercion case.
    OBC(Office of the Bar Confidant):
    Suggested a six-month suspension
    from the practice of law.
    SC:

    The

    Supreme

    Court

    emphasized

    that

    relationship

    between

    the
    a

    lawyer and his client is one


    imbued with utmost trust
    and

    confidence.

    In

    this

    regard, clients are led to


    expect that lawyers would
    be

    ever-mindful

    cause

    and

    exercise
    degree

    their

    accordingly

    the
    of

    of

    required

    diligence

    handling their affairs.

    in

    For his part, the lawyer is

    that the respondent failed

    expected to maintain at all

    to exercise the required

    times a high standard of

    diligence

    in

    handling

    legal proficiency, and to

    complainants

    cause

    devote his full attention,

    since he: (1) failed to

    skill, and competence to the

    represent

    her

    case,

    competently

    and

    regardless

    of

    its

    importance and whether he

    diligently by acting and

    accepts it for a fee or for

    proffering

    free.
    To this end, he is enjoined

    professional

    advice beyond the proper


    bounds of law; and, (2)

    to employ only fair and

    abandoned

    honest

    cause while the grave

    lawful

    means

    to

    objectives.

    attain
    These

    principles are embodied in


    Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of

    coercion

    his
    case

    clients
    against

    them was pending.


    Respondent

    was

    Canon 18, and Rule 19.01

    suspended for three years

    of Canon 19 of the Code.

    from practice of law.

    Thus, the Court found

    You might also like