Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had
reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most
elementary principles of professional ethics.
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge
beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw
his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such
prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor
did he inform complainant of this fact.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and
beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not
synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of
public interest.
SOLATAN V. INOCENTES
Facts: Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty.
Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office
was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex
when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the
PCGG. They represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and
the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying
tenants occupying the Genito Apartments. Solatans sister was a
tenant of the Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to Solatan
and other members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for nonpayment of rentals was filed against her and a decision was rendered
in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises. Solatan
was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He
informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a
new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of
the apartment. Atty.Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the
attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito
Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal
agreement was made in which complainant agreed to pay the entire
judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorneys fees and
costs of suit. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty.
Camano representing half of the attorneys fees. Complainant failed to
make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty.
Camano enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties
found in the subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated and
Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latt
ers dealings withcomplainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory
capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof. Partners and
practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible
to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and
goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are
exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to
foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
persons under their charge.
VILLAFUERTE V. CORTEZ
*attached full text (3 pages)*
CANON 18: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Reontoy V. Ibadlit
Facts:
A complaint filed by Corazon T. Reontoy for the disbarment of her
counsel, Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, for having been negligent in handling
her case for partition, accounting and reconveyance then pending with
the RTC Br. 4, Kalibo, Aklan
Ibadlit admits to being the lawyer of Reontoy and that he received a
copy of the adverse decision of the Civil Case of Reontoy on June 19,
1989. He admits to having filed an appeal on July 17, 1989 when the
expiry date was July 4, 1989.
His defense was that, he informed the brother of Reontoy (Proculo) of
the adverse decision and that making an appeal was futile. He further
states that he believed that the message was passed and that he
intentionally did not file an appeal anymore. However, he was
informed that Reontoy wanted to appeal.
Proculo testified before the IBP that he had no knowledge and
authority regarding the case of Reontoy. Reontoy also informed the
IBP that upon visiting Ibadlits office, he merely told her that the period
for appeal has passed and just returned the case records.
Issue: WON respondent is administratively liable for his actions.
Held:
Yes. A lawyer has no right to waive his clients right to appeal. His
failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes
negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable."
Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities
faithfully and well as to protect the rights and interests of his client.
The record shows that complainant lost the case and suffered the
corresponding loss of her real property in Kalibo, Aklan, consisting of
her undivided share or interest in five (5) valuable parcels of land.
Certainly, complainant paid dearly for respondent's ignorance, laxity, if
not incompetence, by failing to appeal on time.
Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year effective upon finality hereof.
Motan V. Cadiao (full text attached; 2 pages)
Sencio V. Calvadores (full text attached; 2 pages)
Hernandez V. Padilla (full text attached; 4 pages)
Edquibal V. Ferrer (full text attached; 4 pages)
People V. Ingco (full text attached; 1 page)
Barbuco V. Beltran (full text attached also)
Facts:
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent Beltran
for malpractice of law. Complainant, through her son, Benito B. Sy,
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal
before the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, which adverese to the complainants interest. On the
same day, complainant, through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent the
total sum of P3,500.00 for payment of the docket fees.
However, the appeal was dismissed by the CA for failure to file
Appellant's brief. The brief was only filed by respondent 43 days after
the deadline of submission of the same.
When asked to comment, respondent tried to evade liability by
alleging that he met a vehicular accident, which incapacitated him for
several days, thus he cannot finish the appellants brief. Moreover, he
sustained injuries in the head, which as a result respondent lost track
of schedules of hearings and deadlines for submitting briefs.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent's failure to file appellant's brief warrants
sanctions.
Held:
Yes. the SC enunciated that "Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers states:A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable. An attorney is bound to protect his clients
interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to
file brief within the reglementary period certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE (43)
days
resulted
in
the
dismissal
of
the
appeal.
The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and
suffered physical injuries as a result thereof cannot serve to excuse
him from filing his pleadings on time considering that he was a
member of a law firm composed of not just one lawyer. This is shown
by the receipt he issued to complainant and the pleadings which he
signed for and on behalf of the Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law
Office. As such, respondent could have asked any of his partners in
the law office to file the Appellants Brief for him or, at least, to file a
Motion for Extension of Time to file the said pleading.
Moreover, every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that
every case that 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. A lawyers fidelity to the cause of his
client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that
should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to
protect the interest of his client within the bounds of the law. The
Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence and he should not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him. "
On May 31, 1988, when Criminal Case No. 7650 was called
for promulgation of judgment, the trial court appointed Atty.
Augusto Panlilio as counsel de oficio to represent the absent
petitioner. The judgment of conviction of petitioner was
promulgated by the reading of the decision in open court by
the Branch Clerk of Court and furnishing the parties through
their respective counsel present in court with copies of the
decision. Likewise, copies of the decision were sent by
registered mail to petitioner
On December 31, 1988, petitioner was arrested and detained
in the local jail of Angeles City.
On February 6, 1989, petitioner, now represented by a new
counsel de parte filed three motions, namely:
(1)for temporary release as she was pregnant and
allegedly suffering from a heart ailment; (2) to set aside
promulgation of judgment; and (3) to re-open trial. The
prosecution opposed the motions The trial court then
denied the motions to set aside judgment and to re-open
trial, but with regard to the motion for temporary release,
directed that "should a medical examination or
confinement in the hospital be necessary, the court may
allow the accused under guard to consult a physician or
enter a hospital for medical treatment."
Issue: whether or not petitioner was denied her day in court
due to negligence of her lawyer
Held. Yes.
The legal difficulty petitioner finds herself in is imputable to
the negligence of her de parte counsel, Atty. Vicente San
Luis, in abandoning the conduct of the case without formally
withdrawing or at least informing petitioner that he would be
permanently staying in the U.S.A. so that petitioner could
appoint another counsel.
A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He
owes his client full devotion to his genuine interests, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the
exertion of his utmost learningand ability (Canon 17, Code of
Professional Responsibility; Agpalo's Legal Ethics, p. 157). A
lawyer is required to exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the