Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    Ramiscal v. Orro

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    - Ramiscals hired lawyer Edgar Orro to handle a case regarding the nullity of title to a parcel of land. Orro handled the trial court case which the Ramiscals won. However, when the appellate court reversed the decision, Orro failed to inform the Ramiscals and neglected to update them on the case's status. - As a result, the Ramiscals were unaware of the adverse appellate ruling until learning from neighbors. Orro was suspended for 2 years for violating his duty to keep clients informed and respond to requests for case information, which caused substantial prejudice to the Ramiscals.

    Copyright:

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

    Ramiscal v. Orro

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    100 views1 page
    - Ramiscals hired lawyer Edgar Orro to handle a case regarding the nullity of title to a parcel of land. Orro handled the trial court case which the Ramiscals won. However, when the appellate court reversed the decision, Orro failed to inform the Ramiscals and neglected to update them on the case's status. - As a result, the Ramiscals were unaware of the adverse appellate ruling until learning from neighbors. Orro was suspended for 2 years for violating his duty to keep clients informed and respond to requests for case information, which caused substantial prejudice to the Ramiscals.

    Original Description:

    Legal Ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Ramiscals hired lawyer Edgar Orro to handle a case regarding the nullity of title to a parcel of land. Orro handled the trial court case which the Ramiscals won. However, when the appellate court reversed the decision, Orro failed to inform the Ramiscals and neglected to update them on the case's status. - As a result, the Ramiscals were unaware of the adverse appellate ruling until learning from neighbors. Orro was suspended for 2 years for violating his duty to keep clients informed and respond to requests for case information, which caused substantial prejudice to the Ramiscals.

    Copyright:

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

    Ramiscal v. Orro

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    - Ramiscals hired lawyer Edgar Orro to handle a case regarding the nullity of title to a parcel of land. Orro handled the trial court case which the Ramiscals won. However, when the appellate court reversed the decision, Orro failed to inform the Ramiscals and neglected to update them on the case's status. - As a result, the Ramiscals were unaware of the adverse appellate ruling until learning from neighbors. Orro was suspended for 2 years for violating his duty to keep clients informed and respond to requests for case information, which caused substantial prejudice to the Ramiscals.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ramiscal v. Orro Rule 18.

    04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of


    the status of his case and shall respond within a
    Facts: reasonable time to the client's request for information.

    Ramiscals engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Held:


    Edgar S. Orro to handle a case in which they were the
    defendants seeking the declaration of the nullity of title to It is beyond debate, therefore, that the relationship of the
    a parcel of land situated in the Province of Isabela. Upon lawyer and the client becomes imbued with trust and
    receiving the P10,000.00 acceptance fee from them, the confidence from the moment that the lawyer-client
    respondent handled the trial of the case until the (RTC) relationship commences, with the lawyer being bound to
    decided it in their favor. As expected, the plaintiffs serve his clients with full competence, and to attend to
    appealed to the (CA), and they ultimately filed their their cause with utmost diligence, care and devotion. To
    appellants' brief. Upon receipt of the appellants' brief, the accord with this highly fiduciary relationship, the client
    respondent requested from the complainants an expects the lawyer to be always mindful of the former's
    additional amount of P30,000.00 for the preparation and cause and to be diligent in handling the former's legal
    submission of their appellees' brief in the CA. They affairs. As an essential part of their highly fiduciary
    obliged and paid him the amount requested. relationship, the client is entitled to the periodic and full
    updates from the lawyer on the developments of the
    CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The respondent did case.
    not inform the Ramiscals of the adverse decision of the
    CA which they only learned about from their neighbors. He neglected to regularly update them on the status of
    They endeavored to communicate with the respondent the case, particularly on the adverse result, thereby
    but their efforts were initially in vain. When they finally leaving them in the dark on the proceedings that were
    reached him, he asked an additional P7,000.00 from gradually turning against their interest. Updating the
    them as his fee in filing a motion for reconsideration in clients could have prevented their substantial prejudice
    their behalf, albeit telling them that such motion would by enabling them to engage another competent lawyer to
    already be belated. Even so, they paid to him the amount handle their case. As it happened, his neglect in that
    sought. To their dismay, they later discovered that he did respect lost for them whatever legal remedies were then
    not file the motion for reconsideration; hence, the available. His various omissions manifested his utter lack
    decision attained finality, eventually resulting in the loss of professionalism towards them.
    of their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a
    probable worth of P3,391,600.00 Suspended for 2 years.

    Applicable Law:

    You might also like