Judges Hugo Alejandro Llobet and Lesser, members of the First Chamber of the Chamber of Appeal First Civil and Commercial San Isidro, in the case titled "L., J. and other c / S, V. and other s / Damages, "confirmed the lower court ruling that sentenced the lawyer complained to 78,480 pesos to compensate their customers actors because they prevented a claim by a court ruling in their favor.
Counsel was not present in Santa Justice Fe, which was filed the trial even though his clients had given him authority to act "until final completion of trials that are pending at present giving, or in the future I will raise them" before "the courts of the nation or the provinces of any were or jurisdiction, exercising appropriate action. "
"There breach of the duties imposed by the representation, failure to comply with the legal acts necessary and appropriate to protect the rights of his client. The professional is always diligent behavior unfold in an attempt to give satisfaction to the creditor, subject to obligational relationship, and if does not meet this demand, the liability is imposed, the judges understood.
added that the actors were to "protect" why "lost all possibility of claim."
The lawyer had to act before a gathering of a transport company in the province of Santa Fe, which "did not prevent the defendant is present in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the rights of their represented. " "The possibility of recourse to the courts other provinces was no stranger and was previously under the mandate, "explained the maids.
"The credit check was to be an essential management and necessary" for collection "recognized by judicial decision." But "no credit check with the help of the carrier, exclude the plaintiffs in the settlement proposal to undertake the same and made illusory recovery of damages against the co-defendant."
OBLIGATIONS OF ATTORNEYS:
In this case the lawyer took a seizure and therefore "is obliged to provide a result in relation to specific procedural acts of responsibility," explained the judge. Instead, counsel exercising "functions of legal adviser or sponsor the obligation of contracts is just media."
The court clarified that the obligation of result does not mean having to win a trial, but "to meet the appropriate procedural steps, diligent and necessary, taking professional in the direction of the litigation, that is: sign and submit the relevant written, Secretariat to attend at least the days called `note`, attend hearings held, legal remedies against any adverse decision to the party and generally expedite proceedings in the manner prescribed by law. "
"In those cases, it is not necessary to prove the guilt of the attorney, rather be the omission of procedural due, causing the estoppel for not exercising at the end of it, thus resulting in the closure of the respective stage, "they concluded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment