(e) Can interveners receive legal interest in addition to their lawyers` fees? (2,5%) Atty`s relationship. Celso Casis with Miss Cory Cerrada began when he represented her in several criminal proceedings for Estafa and violation of B.P. 22. His expertise and diligence in personally supporting and facilitating their bail and other legal actions saved them from many legal difficulties. Despite her initial resistance, Miss Cerrada, convinced of Atty`s sincerity. Casis and the representation that he was separated from his wife and that he was taking the necessary steps to annul his marriage, began to live openly with him as husband and wife. One day, Atty`s wife. Casis suddenly entered Miss Cerrada`s house and attacked her, inflicting injuries on her. Miss Cerrada then filed a complaint with the IBP, in which she attained. Casis accused of flagrant immorality and gross misconduct. However, soon after, at Atty`s request. Casis, Ms Cerrada submitted a request to withdraw the complaint.
The IBP asked Atty. Casis to file a response, but it did not do so because it relied on Ms. Cerrada to withdraw the complaint against him. When the debts matured, Carmen deposited the check, but it was disgraced for insufficient funds. Carmen then sued Carmina and Celeste for falsifying a business document on Estafa. After finding a probable reason, the prosecutor filed a criminal case in court in which the sisters had to file their joint affidavit. In their affidavit, they raised the defence that they could not be guilty of Estafa because: (i) the cheque was issued only as security; (ii) even if it was issued as payment, it was a pre-existing debt; and (iii) it was only at Carmen`s insistence that they issued the check. (c) Can Carina refuse to pay legal fees on the ground that the lawyers who handled her case in person had already resigned from the law firm with which she had entered into a contract? (2.5%) Concio filed a criminal complaint of medical malpractice against Dr. Cielo, who was eventually fired because he could not prove that Dr. Cielo had acted negligently. Cancio was represented in the present action by Atty. Cogie Ciguerra (Ciguerra).
After losing the medical malpractice lawsuit, Ciguerra began writing a series of messages on his Facebook (FB) account that contained offensive and verbally offensive language against Dr. Cielo. Among other things, Ciguerra called Dr. Cielo a quack doctor, “reyna ng kaplastikan at kapalpakan,” and accused her of maintaining a payola or extra-legal budget to pay prosecutors and judges to win her business. He also called on patients to boycott Dr. Cielo`s clinic. (d) Can Carina`s employer, who is the defendant in the present case, be held jointly and severally liable with Carina for the payment of Carina`s lawyers` lawyers` fees? (2.5%) When Carlos entered law school, he met Cristina, a classmate to whom he entrusted his marital status. Soon after, Carlos and Cristina were involved in an extramarital affair, as a result of which Carlos left Corinne and her children. During Carlos and Cristina`s last year at law school, Consuelo passed away. After being called to the bar, Atty.
Carlos and Atty. Cristina decided to marry in a very private ceremony in Hong Kong. When Corinne learned of Carlos and Cristina`s marriage in Hong Kong, she filed an exclusion lawsuit against Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina for gross immorality. Carlos and Atty. Cristina filed the following defenses: Dr. Cielo filed an exclusion lawsuit against Ciguerra for posting sexist, vulgar, and obscene comments and disrespectful language toward women on his FB account.
Ciguerra`s defense is that his FB messages were private remarks on his private FB account and were only meant to be shared between his FB friends and Dr. Cielo was not one of them. He also claimed that the exclusion was filed in violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. However, the court concluded that Ciguerra did not have any privacy settings. Carina was fired by her employer for breach of trust and intentional violation of company rules and policies. She brought an action for unlawful dismissal, arguing that her dismissal had no legal basis. The laboratory arbitrator found that she had been unlawfully dismissed and awarded her phP 80 million. On appeal to the National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC), the award was reduced to phP 40 million as a starting salary, plus 5 million pesos for the value of her stock option plans, which would have been acquired had she not been illegally dismissed from her job. Dissatisfied with the NLRC`s decision, she appealed to the Court of Appeal (CA) against the amount of the cash prize awarded by the NLRC. She hired Casal, Casos and Associates to manage her appointment. His mandate agreement with Casal, Casos and Associates provided for a contingency fee of 10% of his entitlement to separation compensation and 10% of the value of the stock options to be granted to him.
Ms. Conchita Conchu appointed Atty. Carlo Colorado, as a private plaintiff, to conduct criminal proceedings against those suspected of killing her husband. Colorado fulfilled its functions – it interviewed witnesses to build its case and participated religiously in the hearings. However, he did not attend a hearing (allegedly because he had not received a notification) during which the court granted bail to all defendants against Ms. Conchu`s objections. Ms. Conchu belligerently confronted Atty. Colorado with her absence. Engraved in Conchu`s words, Atty. Colorado filed a “motion to withdraw as a lawyer” in court.
The motion did not receive Ms. Conchu`s approval because Ms. Conchu actually refused to sign her agreement with Atty`s withdrawal. Colorado. In the meantime, the hearing in the criminal case continued, but Atty. Colorado did not appear at the hearings and did not contact Ms. Conchu. Ms. Conchu then filed a complaint seeking disciplinary action against Atty. Colorado.
Atty. Colorado cited the “loss of trust” and “serious differences” with the customer as reasons for the unilateral withdrawal from its services. (a) At a school meeting where Judge Condé was the guest speaker, Judge Condé openly disagreed and criticized a recent Supreme Court decision, even pointing out that the Supreme Court`s decision in this case constituted a serious violation of the Constitution. Casal, Casos and Associates filed an application to intervene in the case pending in court and requested that Carina be ordered to pay them 4 million pesos, or 10% of the amount Carina received from her employer to settle the case, plus 6% interest on the date of filing the application for intervention. until full payment.