Respondent, a lawyer, was hired by Complainant to help her sister in an ejectment case regarding an apartment unit. Respondent filed petitions that were denied and later withdrew from representing Complainant. Complainant paid Respondent 11,000 pesos total for legal fees and additional cases that were never properly filed. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent should be indefinitely suspended for failing to properly represent Complainant, misleading her about the status of the cases, and not returning the legal fees. The Court found Respondent violated legal ethics and caused harm to Complainant.
Respondent, a lawyer, was hired by Complainant to help her sister in an ejectment case regarding an apartment unit. Respondent filed petitions that were denied and later withdrew from representing Complainant. Complainant paid Respondent 11,000 pesos total for legal fees and additional cases that were never properly filed. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent should be indefinitely suspended for failing to properly represent Complainant, misleading her about the status of the cases, and not returning the legal fees. The Court found Respondent violated legal ethics and caused harm to Complainant.
Respondent, a lawyer, was hired by Complainant to help her sister in an ejectment case regarding an apartment unit. Respondent filed petitions that were denied and later withdrew from representing Complainant. Complainant paid Respondent 11,000 pesos total for legal fees and additional cases that were never properly filed. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent should be indefinitely suspended for failing to properly represent Complainant, misleading her about the status of the cases, and not returning the legal fees. The Court found Respondent violated legal ethics and caused harm to Complainant.
Respondent, a lawyer, was hired by Complainant to help her sister in an ejectment case regarding an apartment unit. Respondent filed petitions that were denied and later withdrew from representing Complainant. Complainant paid Respondent 11,000 pesos total for legal fees and additional cases that were never properly filed. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent should be indefinitely suspended for failing to properly represent Complainant, misleading her about the status of the cases, and not returning the legal fees. The Court found Respondent violated legal ethics and caused harm to Complainant.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
CANTILLER VS.
POTENCIANO
FACTS: Complainant is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, defendant in an ejectment case and plaintiff in a reconveyance with damages case; both cases involved the same apartment unit being rented by complainant and sister. Sister lost in both cases though and Peregrina was served a notice to vacate apartment unit. Complainant engaged services of respondent. Respondent filed petition for the annulment of judgment and assured complainant that they will be able to secure a restraining order since the judge is his close friend. Complainant then paid respondent with P1k as attorney’s fees. When case was raffled however, the presiding judge asked him to withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship. Respondent then later asked another P2k, which they will pay to another judg who will issue the restraining order. Later, respondent demanded P10k, which was needed to file another case with RTC to enable them to retain possession of the apartment. At the hearing of the preliminary injunction, respondent, contrary to his promise that he would secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed. Sometime thereafter, complainant found out that the 10k was never deposited in relation to the second case that was filed. Complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the return of the total amount of 11k However, this letter was never answered and the money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this administrative complaint against herein respondent. Meanwhile, both cases filed by respondent have been denied. Respondent in his answer contends that the filing of the cases were done in good faith and that the allegations of complainant relative to the administrative charge against him are all lies, product of one's imagination and only intended to harass him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively liable.
RULING: YES. Suspended indefinitely. SC stated that pleadings filed in cases were poorly prepared and written. The complainant having reposed full faith in respondent, it was his first duty to file the best pleading within his capability. When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's 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. His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes his client. More so in this case, where by reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all her cases. 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 in Civil Case No. 55118 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. His representation that there was an immediate need to file Civil Case No. 55210 when he already knew that he could no longer physically handle the same is an act of deception of his client. He also failed to appear for the complainant in said case. His services were engaged by complainant hoping that the property subject of the ejectment proceeding would be returned to her. In fact, it was respondent who persuaded complainant that the filing of these two cases simultaneously were the means by which this objective can be achieved. His duty was not only to prepare the pleadings but to represent complainant until the termination of the cases. This he failed to do. The allegation of respondent that the ten thousand pesos (P 10,000.00) was given to him as fee for his services, is simply incredible. Indeed, such amount is grossly disproportionate with the service he actually rendered. And his failure to return even a portion of the amount upon demand of complainant all the more bolsters the protestation of complainant that respondent does not deserve to remain as an officer of the court.
