Santiago vs.
Fojas, 248 SCRA 68 (1995)
FACTS:
An expulsion case was faced by the complainants contending that they have illegally removed from
the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino Salvador. The lower court resolved in favor of Salvador
and ordered the complainants to pay, jointly and severally, Mr. Salvador. The case was then elevated
to the Court of Appeals. The complainants lost in their petition at the Court of Appeals due to
abandonment, failure to act accordingly, or serious neglect of their counsel, Atty. Fojas to answer the
civil complaint on an expulsion case. Atty. Fojas assured them that everything was in order and he
had already answered the complaint. However, the appellants soon discovered that he never answered
it after all because, according to him, he was a very busy man. Atty. Fojas admitted his “mistake” in
failing to file an answer for the expulsion case, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion
for reconsideration. However, such motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his
negligence with the reason that the case was a losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was
about to appeal the said decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the complainants and
for the union were illegally and unilaterally terminated by complainant. Complainants then filed for a
disbarment case.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in
failing to file for the complainants an answer
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees
to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any
and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense. In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the
respondent explained his non-filing of the required answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness
occasioned by a large volume and pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case he
attributes it to honest mistake and excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial
order of the trial court. Whether it be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that the
respondent did not comply with his duty to file an answer.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent’s inability to exercise
due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves
his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts
it for a fee or for free. Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and, more specifically,
Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”
Atty. Fojas’s negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a “losing
cause”. The Supreme Court held that he should have seasonably informed the complainants thereof.
Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when
advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the
client’s case, neither overstating nor understanding the prospects of the case.
REPRIMANDED AND ADMONISHED
