Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: en Banc
Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: en Banc
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p
CANON 17 — A lawyer owes delity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 19 — A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of
the law.
Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
xxx xxx xxx
Keeping with the foregoing rules, the Court nds that respondent failed to exercise
the required diligence in handling complainant's cause since he: first, failed to represent
her competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice beyond the
proper bounds of law; and, second, abandoned his client's cause while the grave coercion
case against them was pending. acEHSI
Anent the rst infraction, it bears emphasis that complainant's right over the
properties of her deceased husband, David, has yet to be su ciently established. As such,
the high-handed action taken by respondent to enforce complainant's claim of ownership
over the latter's interest in Consulting Edge — i.e., causing the change of the o ce door
lock which thereby prevented the free ingress and egress of the employees of the said
company — was highly improper. Verily, a person cannot take the law into his own hands,
regardless of the merits of his theory. In the same light, respondent's act of advising
complainant to go into hiding in order to evade arrest in the criminal case can hardly be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
maintained as proper legal advice since the same constitutes transgression of the
ordinary processes of law. By virtue of the foregoing, respondent clearly violated his duty
to his client to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice, 4 0 in violation of Rule
19.01, Canon 19 of the Code as above-quoted. To note further, since such courses of
action were not only improper but also erroneous, respondent equally failed to serve his
client with competence and diligence in violation of Canon 18 of the Code. In the same
regard, he also remained unmindful of his client's trust in him — in particular, her trust that
respondent would only provide her with the proper legal advice in pursuing her interests —
thereby violating Canon 17 of the Code.
With respect to the second infraction, records de nitively bear out that respondent
completely abandoned complainant during the pendency of the grave coercion case
against them; this notwithstanding petitioner's efforts to reach him as well as his
purported receipt of the P150,000.00 acceptance fee. It is hornbook principle that a
lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases
entrusted to his 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 ling the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases
with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even without prodding from the
client or the court. 4 1 Hence, considering respondent's gross and inexcusable neglect by
leaving his client totally unrepresented in a criminal case, it cannot be doubted that he
violated Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code. cESDCa
In addition, it must be pointed out that respondent failed to le his answer to the
complaint despite due notice. This demonstrates not only his lack of responsibility but
also his lack of interest in clearing his name, which, as case law directs, is constitutive of
an implied admission of the charges leveled against him. 4 2 In ne, respondent should be
held administratively liable for his infractions as herein discussed. That said, the Court now
proceeds to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed against respondent.
Several cases show that lawyers who have been held liable for gross negligence for
infractions similar to those committed of respondent were suspended from the practice
of law for a period of two years. In Jinon v. Jiz , 4 3 a lawyer who neglected his client's case,
misappropriated the client's funds and disobeyed the IBP's directives to submit his
pleadings and attend the hearings was suspended from the practice of law for two years.
In Small v. Banares , 4 4 the Court meted a similar penalty against a lawyer who failed to
render any legal service even after receiving money from the complainant; to return the
money and documents he received despite demand; to update his client on the status of
her case and respond to her requests for information; and to le an answer and attend the
mandatory conference before the IBP. Also, in Villanueva v. Gonzales , 4 5 a lawyer who
neglected complainant's cause; refused to immediately account for his client's money and
to return the documents received; failed to update his client on the status of her case and
to respond to her requests for information; and failed to submit his answer and to attend
the mandatory conference before the IBP was suspended from the practice of law for two
years. However, the Court observes that, in the present case, complainant was subjected
to a graver injury as she was prosecuted for the crime of grave coercion largely due to the
improper and erroneous advice of respondent. Were it not for respondent's imprudent
counseling, not to mention his act of abandoning his client during the proceedings,
complainant would not have unduly suffered the harbors of a criminal prosecution. Thus,
considering the superior degree of the prejudice caused to complainant, the Court nds it
apt to impose against respondent a higher penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for a period of three years as recommended by the OBC. aICHEc
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-5.
9. Id. at 2.
21. Id. at 18-19. The Order dated March 15, 2006 issued by Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A.
Vinluan was delivered to respondent on March 27, 2006 as shown in the Quezon City
Central Post O ce's Certi cation dated February 19, 2009 issued by Chief of the
Records Unit Llewelyn Fallarme.
22. Id. at 25. Notice of Mandatory Conference dated September 29, 2006 issued by
Commissioner Tranquil S. Salvador III.
23. Id. at 29 and 31.
24. Id. at 32. Per the Postmaster's Letter dated February 18, 2009.
25. Id. at 98. Order dated February 2, 2007.
38. Vda. de Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013.
39. Trinidad v. Villarin, A.C. No. 9310, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 1, 7.
40. Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol v. Florido , A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA
182, 187.
41. Vda. de Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr., supra note 38.
42. See Re: Criminal Case No. MC-02-5637 Against Arturo V. Peralta and Larry C. De Guzman ,
498 Phil. 318, 325 (2005).
43. See A.C. No. 9615, March 5, 2013, 692 SCRA 348.
44. See 545 Phil. 226 (2007).