Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Soliman V Amboy - BLE Digest

    Uploaded by

    Geriel Dela Cruz
    Marilyn Soliman hired attorney Ditas Lerios-Amboy in 2007 to handle a partition case. Soliman paid Amboy fees totaling $75,000. Amboy later told Soliman additional fees were needed to expedite the title issuance, and Soliman paid $50,000. However, Amboy failed to deliver the titles or file necessary documents. Soliman discovered the additional fees were not received by the proper office. The court affirmed the finding that Amboy violated her professional duties by failing to act with due diligence, keeping Soliman informed, and improperly requesting additional fees. Amboy was suspended for 2 years and ordered to return all fees paid.

    Copyright:

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

    Soliman V Amboy - BLE Digest

    Uploaded by

    Geriel Dela Cruz
    78 views1 page
    Marilyn Soliman hired attorney Ditas Lerios-Amboy in 2007 to handle a partition case. Soliman paid Amboy fees totaling $75,000. Amboy later told Soliman additional fees were needed to expedite the title issuance, and Soliman paid $50,000. However, Amboy failed to deliver the titles or file necessary documents. Soliman discovered the additional fees were not received by the proper office. The court affirmed the finding that Amboy violated her professional duties by failing to act with due diligence, keeping Soliman informed, and improperly requesting additional fees. Amboy was suspended for 2 years and ordered to return all fees paid.

    Original Title

    Soliman v Amboy - BLE Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Marilyn Soliman hired attorney Ditas Lerios-Amboy in 2007 to handle a partition case. Soliman paid Amboy fees totaling $75,000. Amboy later told Soliman additional fees were needed to expedite the title issuance, and Soliman paid $50,000. However, Amboy failed to deliver the titles or file necessary documents. Soliman discovered the additional fees were not received by the proper office. The court affirmed the finding that Amboy violated her professional duties by failing to act with due diligence, keeping Soliman informed, and improperly requesting additional fees. Amboy was suspended for 2 years and ordered to return all fees paid.

    Copyright:

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

    Soliman V Amboy - BLE Digest

    Uploaded by

    Geriel Dela Cruz
    Marilyn Soliman hired attorney Ditas Lerios-Amboy in 2007 to handle a partition case. Soliman paid Amboy fees totaling $75,000. Amboy later told Soliman additional fees were needed to expedite the title issuance, and Soliman paid $50,000. However, Amboy failed to deliver the titles or file necessary documents. Soliman discovered the additional fees were not received by the proper office. The court affirmed the finding that Amboy violated her professional duties by failing to act with due diligence, keeping Soliman informed, and improperly requesting additional fees. Amboy was suspended for 2 years and ordered to return all fees paid.

    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

    A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No.

    10-2753], January 13, 2015


    MARILEN G. SOLIMAN,  v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY
    REYES, J.:

    FACTS: On May 27, 2007, Soliman engaged the services of Atty. Amboy in a
    partition case. Soliman paid P50,000.00 as acceptance fee, and P25,000.00 for the
    latter’s engagement in the processing of the issuance of the titles. Soliman paid the
    corresponding transfer tax, and real property tax bank deposits.

    In the second quarter of 2009, Atty. Amboy told Soliman that there was a delay in
    the issuance of the titles. Atty. Amboy told Soliman that someone from the
    Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance for a fee of P80,000.00
    which was later reduced to P50,000.00. Soliman deposited the P50,000.00 to Atty.
    Amboy’s bank account. Atty. Amboy later failed to deliver the certificates of title.
    Soliman was asked for an additional P10,000.00, but refused to further pay.
    Soliman kept on asking for updates but received no response.

    Soliman later on discovered that no P50,000.00 was received by the RD, and that
    the reason why the title could not be processed was that Atty. Amboy failed to file
    certain documents. Soliman further claimed that Atty. Amboy thereafter refused to
    release the pertinent documents she gave to her or give back the P50,000.00 that
    was already paid to her.

    Atty. Amboy admitted that she had a retainer agreement with Soliman, but denied
    having received any amount from the latter.  She claimed that the retainer
    agreement was not implemented since the partition case was not instituted.  She
    claimed that she merely undertook to research, gather and collate all documents,
    and denied having failed to submit the relevant documents.

    The Investigating Commissioner opined that Atty. Amboy violated the Code of
    Professional Responsibility by failing to observe due diligence in dealing with
    Soliman. It also opined that she failed to inform the latter of the status of the
    proceedings. The IBP ordered the suspension of Atty. Amboy from the practice of
    law for two (2) years and to return the entire amount she received from Soliman.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Amboy violated the Code of Professional


    Responsibility by failing to observe due diligence in dealing with Soliman.

    HELD: Yes. The Court affirms the opinion and penalty imposed by the IBP. The
    Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the
    cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence
    reposed in him.  A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with competence and
    diligence; to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and to keep his client
    informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the
    client’s request for information.

    The circumstances show that Atty. Amboy failed to submit material documents
    relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title.  It was her negligence which
    caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title. Atty. Amboy also
    abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked from Soliman the amount
    of P50,000.00 to be paid to her “contact”. This is not a simple case of negligence
    and incompetence by a counsel in dealing with a client. Atty. Amboy’s acts
    undermined the legal processes, which she swore to uphold and defend.

    You might also like