Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 292 views

    Dagohoy V San Juan

    Uploaded by

    Kristina Cabugao
    1) Attorney Artemio San Juan was administratively charged with gross negligence for failing to file his client Tomas Dagohoy's appellant's brief before the Court of Appeals, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. 2) San Juan claimed he could not file the brief because his client failed to provide him a copy of the case records, but the Supreme Court found securing records was San Juan's responsibility as the lawyer. 3) The Supreme Court suspended San Juan for one year for violating rules requiring competence, diligence, and keeping clients informed, finding him guilty of gross negligence.

    Copyright:

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

    Dagohoy V San Juan

    Uploaded by

    Kristina Cabugao
    292 views1 page
    1) Attorney Artemio San Juan was administratively charged with gross negligence for failing to file his client Tomas Dagohoy's appellant's brief before the Court of Appeals, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. 2) San Juan claimed he could not file the brief because his client failed to provide him a copy of the case records, but the Supreme Court found securing records was San Juan's responsibility as the lawyer. 3) The Supreme Court suspended San Juan for one year for violating rules requiring competence, diligence, and keeping clients informed, finding him guilty of gross negligence.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Dagohoy v San Juan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Attorney Artemio San Juan was administratively charged with gross negligence for failing to file his client Tomas Dagohoy's appellant's brief before the Court of Appeals, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. 2) San Juan claimed he could not file the brief because his client failed to provide him a copy of the case records, but the Supreme Court found securing records was San Juan's responsibility as the lawyer. 3) The Supreme Court suspended San Juan for one year for violating rules requiring competence, diligence, and keeping clients informed, finding him guilty of gross negligence.

    Copyright:

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

    Dagohoy V San Juan

    Uploaded by

    Kristina Cabugao
    1) Attorney Artemio San Juan was administratively charged with gross negligence for failing to file his client Tomas Dagohoy's appellant's brief before the Court of Appeals, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. 2) San Juan claimed he could not file the brief because his client failed to provide him a copy of the case records, but the Supreme Court found securing records was San Juan's responsibility as the lawyer. 3) The Supreme Court suspended San Juan for one year for violating rules requiring competence, diligence, and keeping clients informed, finding him guilty of gross negligence.

    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

    Cabugao, Kristina DR.

    CANON 18

    Case: REX POLINAR DAGOHOY, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN


    JUAN, respondent. (A.C. No. 7944. June 03, 2013.)

    FACTS:

    Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross negligence, in


    connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before the Court of
    Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy, his client and the father of complainant Rex
    Polinar Dagohoy, was charged with and convicted of theft. According to the
    complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for San Juans failure to file the
    appellants brief. He further alleged that San Juan did not file a motion for
    reconsideration against the CAs order of dismissal. The complainant also
    alleged that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real status of
    Tomas appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for its dismissal.

    In his comment, Atty. San Juan denied the charge. He imputed fault on
    Tomas for failing to furnish him a copy of the case records to enable him to
    prepare and file the appellants brief.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Atty. San Juan is guilty of gross negligence.

    HELD:

    Yes. The Supreme Court stated that securing a copy of the case records
    was within Atty. San Juans task as the lawyer. Second, Atty. San Juan knows
    that filing an appellants brief within the reglementary period is critical. Third,
    the records also disclose Atty. San Juans lack of candor in dealing with his
    client. The Court found Atty. San Juan in violation of Rule 18.03 and Rule
    18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provide:

    CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

    Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
    his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

    Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
    and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
    information.

    The Court resolved to suspend Atty. San Juan for a period of one year
    and to deny his motion to be allowed to return to the practice of law.

    You might also like