Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    7

    Uploaded by

    Pan Xie
    Melvin Small hired attorney Jerry Banares to file several complaints against Lyneth Amar. Small paid Banares acceptance and filing fees but after 5 months, Banares had not filed any documents. Banares also failed to return the fees to Small when demanded. Small then filed a complaint against Banares with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for disbarment. The Court ruled that Banares' failure to communicate with his client, file any cases, and return fees when demanded violated his duties as an attorney and warranted disciplinary action.

    Copyright:

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

    7

    Uploaded by

    Pan Xie
    18 views2 pages
    Melvin Small hired attorney Jerry Banares to file several complaints against Lyneth Amar. Small paid Banares acceptance and filing fees but after 5 months, Banares had not filed any documents. Banares also failed to return the fees to Small when demanded. Small then filed a complaint against Banares with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for disbarment. The Court ruled that Banares' failure to communicate with his client, file any cases, and return fees when demanded violated his duties as an attorney and warranted disciplinary action.

    Original Description:

    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?

    Melvin Small hired attorney Jerry Banares to file several complaints against Lyneth Amar. Small paid Banares acceptance and filing fees but after 5 months, Banares had not filed any documents. Banares also failed to return the fees to Small when demanded. Small then filed a complaint against Banares with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for disbarment. The Court ruled that Banares' failure to communicate with his client, file any cases, and return fees when demanded violated his duties as an attorney and warranted disciplinary action.

    Copyright:

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

    7

    Uploaded by

    Pan Xie
    Melvin Small hired attorney Jerry Banares to file several complaints against Lyneth Amar. Small paid Banares acceptance and filing fees but after 5 months, Banares had not filed any documents. Banares also failed to return the fees to Small when demanded. Small then filed a complaint against Banares with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for disbarment. The Court ruled that Banares' failure to communicate with his client, file any cases, and return fees when demanded violated his duties as an attorney and warranted disciplinary action.

    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

    7) MELVIN D. SMALL vs ATTY.

    JERRY BANARES
    A.C. No. 7021 February 21, 2007

    Facts: Complainant engaged the services of respondent in connection with several


    complaints to be filed against one Lyneth Amar (Amar). Complainant paid respondent
    the acceptance fee.

    On later date, complainant paid respondent the filing fees for the cases against Amar.
    Respondent then wrote a demand letter for Amar and talked to Amar on the phone.
    Respondent also informed complainant that he would be preparing the documents for
    the cases. Complainant consistently communicated with respondent regarding the
    status of the cases. But respondent repeatedly told complainant to wait as respondent
    was still preparing the documents.

    After five months, complainant required respondent to present all the documents
    respondent had prepared for the cases against Amar. Respondent was not able to
    present any document. This prompted complainant to demand for a full refund of the
    fees he had paid respondent. Complainant hired the services of Atty. Simbillo to recover
    the money from respondent. But respondent failed to return the money. Hence,
    complainant filed a case for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
    (IBP) against respondent.

    Issue: Whether the acts of respondent warrant disciplinary action.

    Ruling: YES. The Code provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence
    and diligence. He 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. Here,
    respondent’s failure to communicate with complainant was an unjustified denial of
    complainant’s right to be fully informed of the status of the cases. Moreover, it appears
    that respondent failed to file the appropriate cases against Amar. By his inaction,
    respondent disregarded his duties as a lawyer.

    The Code also mandates that every lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys of his client
    that may come into his possession. Furthermore, a lawyer shall account for all money
    received from the client and shall deliver the funds of the client upon demand. Since
    respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant and he failed to file a case
    against Amar, respondent should have promptly accounted for and returned the money
    to complainant. But even after demand, respondent did not return the money.
    Respondent’s failure to return the money to complainant upon demand is a violation of
    the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity.
    Moreover, respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by his failure to file an answer to the
    complaint and his refusal to appear at the mandatory conference. The IBP rescheduled
    the mandatory conference twice to give respondent a chance to answer the complaint.
    Still, respondent failed to appear, exhibiting his lack of respect for the IBP and its
    proceedings.

    The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary, requiring utmost good faith, loyalty,
    and fidelity on the part of the attorney. In this case, respondent clearly fell short of the
    demands required of him as a member of the Bar.

    You might also like