25/01/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AgSS6wSAy/
JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨⚖️
Myrna Gomez Stewart vs. Atty. Crisalddo Rioflorido
A.C. No. 13982, July 17, 2024
Whether a lawyer’s failure to inform the client of the status of the case constitutes a violation of the lawyer’s oath.
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that a lawyer’s failure to exercise due diligence, particularly his/her shortcomings in keeping the client informed of the status of the case, constitutes simple negligence that warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
It cited Canon IV, Section 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which requires lawyers to regularly inform the client of the status and the result of the matter undertaken and any action in connection thereto and to respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
The SC underscored that as an officer of the court, it is the duty of a lawyer to inform his client of whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his client's case. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client's interests, as it will affect the public trust in the legal profession.