1. Victoria C. Sousa filed a complaint against attorney J. Albert R. Tinampay for failing to represent her interests in a civil case where she was a co-defendant.
2. The IBP-CBD found Tinampay guilty of grave misconduct for failing in his duty to safeguard his client's interests. They recommended he be suspended from practice for 1 year.
3. The Supreme Court found Tinampay negligent and unmindful of his duties to his client. He was suspended from practice for 1 year and warned of more severe penalties if he repeats the misconduct.
1. Victoria C. Sousa filed a complaint against attorney J. Albert R. Tinampay for failing to represent her interests in a civil case where she was a co-defendant.
2. The IBP-CBD found Tinampay guilty of grave misconduct for failing in his duty to safeguard his client's interests. They recommended he be suspended from practice for 1 year.
3. The Supreme Court found Tinampay negligent and unmindful of his duties to his client. He was suspended from practice for 1 year and warned of more severe penalties if he repeats the misconduct.
1. Victoria C. Sousa filed a complaint against attorney J. Albert R. Tinampay for failing to represent her interests in a civil case where she was a co-defendant.
2. The IBP-CBD found Tinampay guilty of grave misconduct for failing in his duty to safeguard his client's interests. They recommended he be suspended from practice for 1 year.
3. The Supreme Court found Tinampay negligent and unmindful of his duties to his client. He was suspended from practice for 1 year and warned of more severe penalties if he repeats the misconduct.
1. Victoria C. Sousa filed a complaint against attorney J. Albert R. Tinampay for failing to represent her interests in a civil case where she was a co-defendant.
2. The IBP-CBD found Tinampay guilty of grave misconduct for failing in his duty to safeguard his client's interests. They recommended he be suspended from practice for 1 year.
3. The Supreme Court found Tinampay negligent and unmindful of his duties to his client. He was suspended from practice for 1 year and warned of more severe penalties if he repeats the misconduct.
Who (parties) and what Victoria C. Sousa v. Atty. J. Albert R. Tinampay, A.C. No. (case no. / date) 7428, Nov. 25, 2019. Why and how Complainant (all the - The complainant is a co-defendant in a civil case for circumstances that annulment of sale. The complainant appointed the lead to file a case) respondent as an attorney-in-fact. - The respondent did not appear in the proceedings before the MCTC, and, although he was present in the refiled case in the RTC, he remained silent and did not submit any notice for his substitution as the new counsel of the complainant. Thus, the complainant’s case was declared in default. Respondent - He was never the counsel of the complainant. He insisted (defenses) that Atty. Cabilan was the counsel of record of the complainant. He averred that he represented the complainant’s co-defendants in the refiled case, and that there was no retainer agreement between him and the complainant. - He admitted that he billed the complainant amounting to Php 41, 500.00 as referral fee. What is the - That the respondent failed in his duty to safeguard the recommendation of the interest of his client during the pre-trial of the refiled case. IBP-CBD? It was recommended that the respondent should be reprimanded. - The IBP Board of Directors adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD with modifications. It found that the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year. - The court granted the respondent’s motion for reconsideration and resolved to reverse and set aside the case. What is the - null recommendation of OCA? Issues raised to the SC - Whether or not the respondent should be reprimanded notwithstanding the ruling of IBP Board. Dispositive portion - The court finds that the respondent is negligent and (final decision) unmindful of his sworn duties to the complainant. - Atty. Tinampay was found guilty of violating Canons 17, 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR. He was suspended for 1 year from the practice of law and sternly warned that the repetition of the same shall be dealt with a EDUARDO, RAY BRADLEY B. Legal Ethics – Sat. 6:00-9:00pm more severe penalty. What are the core - Love for truth; respect for one’s reputation. moral values that were ignored? What are the virtues - Competence that are missing - Diligence - Zealousness What are the vices that - Heedlessness the respondent got - Incompetence involved in? What are the lessons - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and be that I learned from this mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him (Canon case so that no case of 17). All proceedings must be dealt with accordingly to the similar can be filed best of his capacities and the interest of his client with due against me in the diligence of a good father. future?