Tejano v.
Baterina
A.C 8235
Facts: Complainant Tejano accussed Judge Arquelada of acting in conspiracy with Atty.
Baterina for the former to take possession of his property which was the subject matter
of litigation under said Judge’s court.
Tejano further claims that Atty. Baterina failed to advance his cause, failing to object when
the trial court pronounced that they waived their right to present evidence after several
postponements.
However, in his answer, Atty. Baterina denied the allegation of bad faith and negligence
in handling the Tejano case. He explained that the reason he could not attend to the case
was that in 2002, after the initial presentation of the plaintiff’s case, he was suspended by
the Court from the practice of law for 2 years. Hence, Tejano was not represented by any
lawyer until the termination of his case.
Issue: Whether Atty. Baterina neglected his duty to his client
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he makes a commitment to exercise
due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. One a lawyer’s services are engaged, he is
duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with
diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
Atty. Baterinas duty to his clients did not automatically cease with his suspension. At the
very least, such suspension gave him a concomitant responsibility to inform his clients
that he would be unable to attend to their case and advise them to retain another counsel.
A lawyer even one suspended from practicing the profession owes it to his client to not
sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty. The client should never
be left groping in the dark and instead must be adequately and fully informed about the
developments in his case. Thus, his failure to file the required pleadings on his clients
behalf constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ramirez v. Margallo
A.C No. 10537
Facts: Atty. Margallo represented Ramirez in a case involving a land controversy. On
October 19, 2006, the RTC promulgated a decision adverse to Ramirez thus,
Atty.Margallo advised him to appeal the judgment to which he committed.
The appeal was perfected and the records were sent to the Court of Appeals in September
2008, and in the same year, CA directed Ramirez to file his appellant’s brief to which he
then notified Atty. Margallo who replied that she would have one prepared. On several
different occasions, Ramirez followed up on Atty. Margallo regarding the status of
appellant’s brief to which she replied as there is still no update from it.
However, on August 2009, atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that his Appeal had been
denied. due to Ramirez’s failure to establish his filiation with his alleged father, which was
the basis of his claim. She also informed him that they could no longer appeal to this court
since the Decision of the Court of Appeals had been promulgated and the reglementary
period for filing an Appeal had already lapsed
Ramirez went to the Court of Appeals. There, he discovered that the Appellant’s Brief was
filed on April 13, 2009 with a Motion for Reconsideration and Apologies for filing beyond
the reglementary period.
Issue: Whether Atty. Margallo committed negligence
Ruling: The Supreme Court Ruled in the Affirmative.
The lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty. Margallo and her
client was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of her client. This cost
complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no appellate remedies. His legal
cause was orphaned not because a court of law ruled on the merits of his case, but
because a person privileged to act as counsel failed to discharge her duties with the
requisite diligence. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested
to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no proof that she exerted efforts to
communicate with her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her obligation as
counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo failed to exhaust all
possible means to protect complainant Ramirez’s interest, which is contrary to what she
had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. For these reasons, she clearly
violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of
their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
Case law further illumines that a lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not
merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel’s care or giving sound legal advice,
but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending
scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings,
prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination
without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
Samonte v. Jumamil
A.C No. 11668
Facts: Samonte received summons from NLRC relative to an illegal dismissal case
involving her small banana plantation. Thus, she availed the services of Atty. Jumamil to
prepare her position paper for P8000.
Despite constantly reminding respondent of the deadline for the submission of her
position paper, complainant discovered that he still failed to file the same. As such, on
2013, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision based on the evidence on record, whereby
complainant was held liable to the workers. When complainant confronted respondent
about the said ruling, the latter casually told her to just sell her farm to pay the farm
workers. Because of respondent's neglect, complainant claimed that she was left
defenseless and without any remedy to protect her interests against the execution of the
foregoing judgment; hence, she filed the instant complaint.
Atty. Jumamil in his answer admitted that he indeed failed to file the position paper, but
he asserts that it was because of complainant’s failure to produce credible witnesses to
testify in her favor.
Issue: Whether Atty. Jumamil is negligent in his duty towards Samonte
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of
their cause, and accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs. Accordingly, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases,
regardless of their importance, and whether they accept them for a fee or for free.
In this case, it is undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship was forged between
complainant and respondent when the latter agreed to file a position paper on her behalf
before the NLRC and, in connection therewith, received the amount of ₱8,000.00 from
complainant as payment for his services. Case law instructs that a lawyer-client
relationship commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to handle a client's case
and accepts money representing legal fees from the latter, as in this case. From then on,
as the CPR provides, a lawyer is duty-bound to "serve his client with competence and
diligence," and in such regard, "not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
However, it is fairly apparent that respondent breached this duty when he admittedly failed
to file the necessary position paper before the NLRC, which had, in fact, resulted into an
adverse ruling against his client, herein complainant. To be sure, it is of no moment that
complainant purportedly failed to produce any credible witnesses in support of her
position paper; clearly, this is not a valid justification for respondent to completely
abandon his client's cause. By voluntarily taking up complainant's case, respondent gave
his unqualified commitment to advance and defend the latter's interest therein. Verily, he
owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.
Layos v. Villanueva
A.C No. 8085
Facts: Layos filed a complaint against Atty. Villanueva for his alleged lack of candidness
and fervor on his part to champion the cause of his client, considering that he never
bothered to know the outcome of the hearings to which he was absemt from, and it took
respondent a long amount of time before moving to reconsider the RTC’s June 26, 2003
Order. Likewise, respondent never questioned the appearances of other lawyers as
complainant’s counsel during his absence.
However, in his answer, he claimed that on the day where the case was to be amicably
settled, his car broke down and after his car was fixed, he decided to go back to his office
and asked his secretary to call complainant to know what happened in the said hearing.
However, respondent was unable to contact complainant and that he never heard from
the latter for a long time. Respondent claimed that he no longer received any notices from
the RTC, and thus, he assumed that the amicable settlement pushed through and that
the case was dismissed already.
He further claimed that it was only in November 2005 when he received a notice of
hearing from the RTC, and thus, he went there to get a copy of the 2003 order but he only
received such copy on April 2006, and filed a motion for reconsideration a year after
receiving the same.
Issue: Whether Atty. Villanueva committed negligence in advancing his client’s cause
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney 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.
In this connection, the lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his actions, omissions,
or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. As such, the lawyeris expected to be
acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a clientwho deals with him
has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence
but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client’s cause.
In the case at bar, records reveal that since missing the April 4, 2002 hearing due to car
trouble, respondent no longer kept track of complainant’s criminal case and merely
assumed that the same was already amicably settled and terminated. Thereafter, when
respondent finally knew that the case was still on-going, he attended the November 15,
2005 hearing, and discovered the RTC’s issuance of the June 26, 2003 Order which is
prejudicial to complainant’s cause. Despite such alarming developments, respondent did
not immediately seek any remedy to further the interests of his client.1âwphi1 Instead, he
passively relied on the representations of the court employees that they would send him
a copy of the aforesaid Order. Worse, when he finally secured a copy on April 4, 2006, it
still took him over a year, or until April 21, 2007, just to move the RTC to reconsider its
June 26, 2003 Order. Naturally, the RTC and the CA denied the motion for being filed
way beyond the reglementary period, to the detriment of complainant. Clearly, respondent
failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly
possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment.
Villanueva v. Gonzales
A.C No. 7657
Facts: Villanueva availed the services of Atty. Gonzales for the purpose of transferring a
land title to her name. She gave P8,000 as acceptance fee and turned over the property’s
TCT, and other pertinent documents.
Hoever, after receiving said money, Atty. Gonzales then started to avoid her. In a letter
dated 2 July 2003, complainant told respondent that she had lost her trust and confidence
in him and asked him to return the P8,000, TCT, and other documents. Atty. Gonzales
refused to return the money, TCT, and other documents. After some time and after
complainant's daughter confronted him, respondent finally returned the money. However,
until now, respondent has not returned the TCT and other documents. Hence, she filed a
complaint against him.
Issue: Whether Atty. Gonzales neglected the client’s cause
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
Clearly, respondent did not serve complainant with fidelity, competence, or diligence. He
totally neglected complainant's cause. An attorney-client relationship between
respondent and complainant was established when respondent accepted the acceptance
fee. Since then, he should have exercised due diligence in furthering his client's cause
and given it his full attention. Respondent did not render any service.
Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he is bound by the Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal
services and subsequently failing to render such service is a clear violation of Canons 17
and 18. Further, the Court held that "if alawyer does not use the money for the intended
purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client." In the instant case,
respondent demanded P10,000 and received P8,000 as acceptance fee. Since he did not
render any legal service, he should have promptly accounted for and returned the money
to complainant.
Santos v. Lazaro
A.C No. 5085
Facts: Santos availed the services of Atty. Lazaro over an ejectment case before the
MTC of Manila. Complainant paid a total of P50,000 for the services of Atty. Lazaro, and
another P30,000 for the appeal after the MTC rendered a decision against the
complainants.
On March 1997, RTC issued an order directing Santos to file his memorandum/ brief
within 30 days from receipt thereof. However, Lazazro was reproached by the RTC for
not complying with its March 1997 Order. Likewise, RTC granted the motion for a writ of
execution and disregarded Lazaro’s excuse for not filing the memorandum/ brief.
Santos also filed a complaint for disbarment against Lazaro.
Issue: Whether Atty. Lazaro committed negligence in his duties
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
he acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional
ethics. By neglecting to file the memorandum/brief, respondent set off a chain of events
which eventually ended in the demolition of a 34-meter structure which complainant and
four other families call home. His explanation that his attention was focused on matters
pertaining on the submission of pleadings thereafter needed to be filed in reply to plaintiffs
manifestation and motion is too ludicrous to be believed. His stance, to quote the trial
court, was but a feeble attempt to extricate himself from his blunder which is not excusable.
Respondents failure to exercise due diligence in attending to the interest of complainant
caused the latter material prejudice. As a lawyer, respondent was wanting in the exercise
of reasonable care demanded of every member of the Bar; his measure of diligence is
several notches below the standard required of his office.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that negligence
of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render
them liable. It is a basic postulate in legal ethics that when a lawyer takes a clients cause,
he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to
exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family
makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed upon him by his client and makes him
answerable to him, to the courts and to society.
Rodrigo Conche Y Obilo v People of the Philippines
G.R No. 253312
Facts: Conche was charged with violation of Dangerous Drugs Acts to which he was
convicted of by the RTC . He sought a reconsideration but it was denied, and likewise
sustained by the CA.
GT Law Office, counsel of Conche received a copy of the decision on October 7, 2015
but did not timely file a motion for reconsideration or appeal, thereby causing the decision
to become final and executory.
Conche then seek assistance in PAO to which the latter argues Atty. Gutierrez gross
negligence in the way he handles Conche’s case.
Issue: Whether Atty. Gutierrez committed negligence
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
Conche's right to appeal was denied because of Atty. Gutierrez's gross negligence and
misrepresentations. He was not guilty of contributory negligence for the loss of his right
to appeal. The manner by which Atty. Gutierrez handled his case deprived him of his right
to be assisted by "effective" counsel. This Court must therefore intervene to protect and
prevent the violation of his Constitutional right to be heard by himself and counsel.
To deprive him of his right to appeal because of his reliance in good faith on his counsel
would amount to a violation of his right to due process. To send him to prison for life
without allowing him to exhaust his rights and remedies under the law would be a travesty
of justice and a failure of our judicial system which this Court will not stand for.
Consequently, in the interest of equity and substantial justice, We rule to grant the petition
and set aside the Entry of Judgment to give due course to Conche's right to a final appeal
of his case.
Finally, as warranted by the established facts of this case, the Court institutes disciplinary
proceedings against Atty. Gutierrez for her actions that appear to have violated the
Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. This case is referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Latogan v. People of the Philippines
G.R No. 238298
Facts: Latogan was charged with the crime of Murder to which he was found guilty.
Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal but it was not given due course as it was already
beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Dismayed, he initiated a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA.
However, said petition was dismissed based on some procedural flaws such as not
impleading the People of the Philippines as the respondent and not furnishing the Office
of the Solicitor General a copy of the petition.
Issue: Whether the petition should be granted due to the counsel’s incompetence
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
It is evident that the case has been marked by gross negligence and incompetence of the
petitioner's counsel. The Court notes once again that petitioner's counsel filed a flawed
motion for reconsideration before the RTC. Later, the CA denied due course to petitioner's
petition for certiorari, as well as his subsequent notice of appeal, due to egregious errors
of his counsel. The present action was almost dismissed as it is likewise laden with
defects at the beginning, to wit: (a) it was filed out of time and the docket fees were paid
late; (b) it lacked a verified statement of material dates; (c) no copy of the assailed Sep
ember 29, 2015, CA Resolution was attached thereto; (d) the verification was defective;
and (e) the affiant in the affidavit of service lacks competent proof of identity. Truth be
told, these defects are plainly avoidable with the application of the relevant guidelines
existing in our Rules of Court.
Without doubt, petitioner is entitled to competent legal representation from his counsel.
The counsel's mere failure to observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the protection
of the interests of the petitioner as the client, as manifested in the multiple procedural
infirmities and shortcomings herein, is gross negligence. If the incompetence of counsel
was so serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the latter
must be given another chance to present his case and assail his conviction. The legitimate
interest of petitioner, specifically his right to have his conviction reviewed by the CA as a
superior tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the altar of technicalities.
People of the Philippines v. Serzo
G.R No. 118435
Facts: Serzo was charged with the crime of Murder when he repeatedly stabbled Alfredo
Casabal who rescued the former’s son from his own custody.
He was given a counsel de officio to which he denied, asking that he be given one at his
own choice, thus the arraignment was post poned. Following these events are several
postponements of trial due to Serzo appearing without counsel. This went on for years,
thus, the court afforded the defense one last opportunity to present its case by submitting
its memorandum simultaneously with the prosecution to which he was found guilty, based
on the evidences presented by the Prosecution.
Issue: Was Serzo denied his right to counsel
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
An accused may exercise his right to counsel by electing to be represented either by a
court-appointed lawyer or by one of his own choice. While his right to be represented by
counsel is immutable, his option to secure the services of counsel de parte, however, is
not absolute. The court is obliged to balance the privilege to retain a counsel of choice
against the states's and the offended party's equally important right to speedy and
adequate justice. Thus, the court may restrict the accused's option to retain a counsel de
parte if the accused insists on an attorney he cannot afford, or the chosen counsel is not
a member of the bar, or the attorney declines to represent the accused for a valid
reason, such as conflict of interest and the like.
Appellant had been given ample time to secure the services of a counsel de parte, but
his subsequent appearances in court without such counsel and his act of allowing this
situation to continue until the presentation of his evidence betrays his lack of intention to
do so. It even appears that he was merely delaying his own presentation of evidence on
purpose to the prejudice of the offended party, the trial court and the orderly administration
of justice.
Furthermore, appellant did not demonstrate in what way the services of his counsels de
oficio were unsatisfactory. He did not cite any instance substantiating his claim that he
was not effectively represented. In short, he was afforded a chance to be heard by
counsel of his own choice, but by his own neglect or mischief, he effectively waived such
right. It taxes the mind to think that, almost two years 37 since appellant first invoked his
right to be represented by counsel de parte, he still could not find one who would suit his
needs and desires. Neither did he cooperate with his court-named lawyers.
The facts of this case do not constitute a deprivation of appellant's constitutional right to
counsel because he was adequately represented by three court-appointed lawyers: Atty.
Lina-ac, Atty. Antonano and Atty. Garcia. Courts are not required to await indefinitely the
pleasure and convenience of the accused as they are also mandated to promote the
speedy and orderly administration of justice. Nor should they countenance such an
obvious trifling with the rules. Indeed, public policy requires that the trial continue as
scheduled, considering that appellant was adequately represented by counsels who were
not shown to be negligent, incompetent or otherwise unable to represent him
Figueras v Jimenez
A.C No. 9116
Facts: Spouses Santander filed a civil suit against the Congressional Village
Homeowner’s Association, represented by the Gonzales Sinense Jimenez and
Associates , and Ely Mabanag for building a concrete wall that abutted to their property.
They further alleged that such structure was in violation of Ordinance No. 8633in Quezon
City.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the spouses Santander thus the Association thru
the law firm, filed an appeal before the CA to which the CA dismissed due to lapse of time.
8 years later, complainants, members of the Association filed a complaint for disbarment
against the respondent for their allegedly negligence in handling the appeal.
Jimenez, in his answer states that although his law firm represented the Association, the
case was actually handled by an associate lawyer in his law office. As the partner in
charge of the case, he exercised general supervision over the handling counsel and
signed the pleadings prepared by said handling lawyer. Upon discovery of the omissions
of the handling lawyer, appropriate sanctions were imposed on the handling lawyer and
he thereafter personally took responsibility and spent personal funds to negotiate a
settlement with Federico Santander at no cost to the Association. No damage whatsoever
was caused to the Association.
Issue: Whether Atty. Jimenez was negligent in handling the civil suit
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the
latter’s interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellants brief on behalf of his
client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule
12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member
of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice
The respondent had been remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel for
Congressional Village Homeowner’s Association, Inc. Records show that respondent filed
the first motion for extension of time to file appellants brief 95 days after the expiration of
the reglementary period to file said brief, thus causing the dismissal of the appeal of the
homeowner’s association. To justify his inexcusable negligence, respondent alleges that
he was merely the supervising lawyer and that the fault lies with the handling lawyer. His
contention, however, is belied by the records for we note that respondent had filed with
the CA an Urgent Motion for Extension, which he himself signed on behalf of the law firm,
stating that a previous motion had been filed but due to the health condition of the
undersigned counsel, he was not able to finish said Appellant’s Brief within the fifteen (15)
day period earlier requested by him. Thus, it is clear that respondent was personally in
charge of the case.
