Santiago vs.

Fojas 248 SCRA 69 (1995) The Case: Petitioners: The Complainants, former clients of the respondent, pray that the latter be disbarred for "malpractice, neglect and other offenses which may be discovered during the actual investigation of this complaint." Attached in their Affidavit of Merit, they allege that because of the respondents neglect and malpractice of law that they lost their case to Judge Capulong and their appeal in the Court of Appeals. Respondent: The unfavorable judgment by the Regional Trial Court in the case is not imputable to [his] mistake but rather imputable to the merits of the case. He further claims that the complainants filed this case to harass him because he refused to share his attorney's fees in the main labor case he had handled for them. The respondent then prays for the dismissal of this complaint for utter lack of merit, since his failure to file the answer was cured and, even granting for the sake of argument that such failure amounted to negligence, it cannot warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of the law profession.

Issue: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V91.

Ruling: He is liable for inexcusable negligence. WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to 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. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Else wise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply 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. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.

The Antecedent Facts: Santiago, Hontiveros, Manas, and Nordista, members of Far Eastern University Faculty Association (FEUFA), were alleged to have illegally expelled Paulino Salvador from the union. The latter filed a complaint with the Dept. of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which ruled in favor of Salvador. Subsequently, Salvador filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela a complaint against the complainants for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case on grounds of (1) res judicata and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Later, he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. Judge Capulong granted the motion but was later re-instated upon Salvadors motion for reconsideration and required the complainants herein to file their answer within a nonextendible period of fifteen days from notice. Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case. This motion having been denied, the respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari. Both petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied, respondent still did not file the complainants answer. The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to stop the ex-parte reception of evidence before the Clerk of Court, but to no avail. Thereafter, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Salvador. Complainants, assisted by respondent, elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals but affirmed the decision in toto by the RTC.

Baho Pipi Notes

A.C. No. 5739

September 12, 2007

PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE I (PANELCO I) represented by its GM, ROLANDO O. REINOSO, vs. ATTY. JUAN AYAR GARCIA, MONTEMAYOR Facts: This is an administrative complaint filed by Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) charging Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor with negligence in handling the cases assigned to him which caused unwarranted financial losses to the complainant, approximately in the total amount of sixteen million pesos (PhP 16,000,000). PANELCO I stated that while acting as counsel for the cooperative, respondent was negligent in handling its cases. It alleged: 4. One of the cases assigned to Atty. Montemayor was filed with the RTC of Pangasinan. It was decided that the case be appealed to the CA; 5. However, the CA ordered the Dismissal of the appeal for the failure of Atty. Montemayor to serve and file the required number of copies within the time provided by the Rules of Court; 6. In view of the dismissal, the Decision of the TC became final and executory, and the judgment award in the amount (P2,179,209.18) was paid by the complainant; 7. Another case was yet assigned to Atty. Montemayor. Again, the decision was appealed by PANELCO I to the CA, through Atty. Montemayor; 8. In its resolution, the CA considered the appeal abandoned due to the failure of Atty. Montemayor to serve and file the required Appellant's Brief despite the lapse of the two extensions of time granted.; 9. Thus, the funds of PANELCO I deposited in banks were garnished until the judgment award was paid to the Plaintiff ECCO-ASIA 10. Later, Atty. Montemayor informed the complainant of the judgment RTC that he had filed his appeal; 11. Upon receipt of the Notice of Garnishments, complainant confronted Atty. Montemayor on the matter, and he uttered "napabayaan ko itong kaso...ano ang gagawin natin"; 12. As a consequence of the negligence of Atty. Montemayor, the complainant was forced to settle with the Plaintiffs without the benefit of an approved time-table, and is presently in a dire financial situation

Thus, the Court declared respondent to have WAIVED the filing of Comment on the Complaint for failure to file his comment despite an extension of 15 days. Issue: WON respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in mishandling complainants cases on appeal. Ruling: The Court agrees with the IBP in its findings and conclusion that respondent has been remiss in his responsibilities. The pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide: CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. xxxx Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY 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. xxxx Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. xxxx CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW. Manifestly, respondent has fallen short of the competence and diligence required of every member of the Bar in relation to his client. As counsel, respondent had the duty to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect his client. When he undertook his clients cause, he made a covenant that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until its final conclusion. He should undertake the task with dedication and care, and if he should do no less, then he is not true to his lawyer's oath. The respondent failed to live up to his duties and responsibilities. The appeals of his client, the petitioner, were dismissed due to his improper way of filing the appeal and his non-filing of the appellants brief. Respondent did not offer a

Baho Pipi Notes

plausible explanation for not doing his level best in representing his clients cause on appeal; thus, making complainant suffer serious losses. There is no doubt that it was part of respondents obligation to complainant, as the latters counsel of record in the civil cases, to prosecute with assiduousness said cases on appeal in order to safeguard complainant's rights, but it was respondents negligence or omission which has caused damage to such interests. In the case of Jardin v. Villar, Jr., the Court cited several cases where lawyers were suspended for a period of six (6) months from the practice of law for their failure to file briefs or other pleadings for their respective clients. The case of Atty. Montemayor is however different. He is guilty not only of his unjustified failure to file the appellants brief of his client not only once but twice. Moreover the Court notes with dismay the huge losses suffered by complainant PANELCO I in the total amount of (PhP 16,000,000). Lastly, Atty. Montemayor demonstrated an utter lack of regard for the very serious charges against him and a gross disrespect for the Court when he failed to file his comment after being required to file his response to the said charges. Respondent could have presented sufficient justification for his inability to file the appellants briefs but failed to do so. WHEREFORE, Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor is DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Baho Pipi Notes

G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 VENANCIO CASTANEDA and NICETAS HENSON, vs. PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Facts: In 1955, Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago and judgment was rendered in favor of them. Consequently, Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution but his motions were denied. In 1963, the sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson, which Ago failed to redeem. Ago then filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wifes share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made. The CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda, the Register of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued In 1966, Ago filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Ago filed a similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Ago appealed to SC which dismissed the petition Later, Ago filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.

conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice. A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his clients cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyers insistence despite the patent futility of his clients position. It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his case. If he finds his clients cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his cl ients propensity to litigate.

ISSUE WON the Agos lawyer, encouraged his clients to avoid controversy RULING No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriffs sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a

Baho Pipi Notes

Caballero vs. Deiparine G.R. No. L-39059 September 30, 1974 Facts: This involves a dispute over a parcel of land and the acts committed by the plaintiff-lawyer which were not intended by his client, the plaintiff. That during the lifetime of Bucao she with her second husband acquired by joint purchase a parcel of land from the TalisayMinglanilla Estate. That in 1932 Bucao and Tomas executed jointly a notarial instrument wherein they acknowledged that Antonio Caballero had contributed the amount therein stated for the purchase of the property and they sold 1/4 of the lot to him; when the title to said lot was issued, Vicenta Bucao and Tomas Raga held it in trust for their co-owner. That the portion mentioned as sold to plaintiff Antonio Caballero remained unsegregated from Lot 2072 and the deed of sale of the Complaint; nor had it been registered in the Register of Deeds; but he had been in occupation of a portion of this lot peacefully until the present. Bucao sold her undivided 1/2 of the above parcel to her coowner, Tomas Raga. Defendants Olimpio Raga, Adriano Raga, Magdalena Raga and Tomas Raga executed an instrument known as "Declaration and confirmation of sale" without the participation of plaintiffs Antonio Caballero and Concordia Caballero, wherein they stated that they are the heirs of Vicenta Bucao of the 1/2 of the property to Tomas Raga. Alma Deiparine acquired in good faith, with a just title and for a valuable consideration, the whole of Lot 2072 from Tomas Raga as per deed of absolute sale. That defendant Alma Deiparine came to know only of the sale when it was presented by plaintiff Antonio Caballero at the trial of an ejectment case filed by the former in the Municipal Court of Talisay. This case was decided in favor of Antonio Caballero but the decision was appealed by Alma Deiparine to the Court of First Instance of Cebu which affirmed the decision for Caballero. The case is now in the Court of Appeals on appeal by Alma Deiparine. Caballero and the defendant parties entered into a compromise agreement, and the lawyer of Caballero admitted to certain facts without the authority of his client, Caballero. ISSUE: Is the compromise valid, considering that the lawyer admitted to facts which were not authorized by his client to make?

RULING: NO. 1. A reading of the stipulation of facts convinced the court that it is a compromise agreement of the parties. The stipulation concludes with this prayer: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the foregoing Stipulation of Facts be approved and that a decision be handed down on the legal issues submitted on the basis of said Stipulation of Facts." Apparently it is intended to terminate the case. 2. Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash 3. It may be true that during the pre-trial hearing held on February 3, 1968, the parties concerned agreed to execute a stipulation of facts but it does not mean that the respective counsels of the contending parties can prepare a stipulation of facts the contents of which is prejudicial to the interest of their clients and sign it themselves without the intervention of their clients. 4. Counsel for plaintiffs-appellants, Atty. Melecio C. Guba, agreed that defendant-appellee Alma Deiparine bought the land in question in good faith and for a valuable consideration; that during the lifetime of their mother Vicenta Bucao, she, with the conformity of her husband, sold her undivided of the land in question to her co-owner and son, Tomas Raga. 5. All these adverse facts were made the basis of the appealed decision against the plaintiffs. No further evidence was presented as there was no hearing. 6. The attorney for the plaintiffs in making such admission went beyond the scope of his authority as counsel and practically gave away the plaintiffs' case. The admission does not refer to a matter of judicial procedure related to the enforcement of the remedy. It related to the very subject matter of the cause of action, or to a matter on which the client alone can make the admission binding on him. 7. The broad implied or apparent powers of an attorney with respect to the conduct or control of litigation are, however, limited to matters which relate only to the procedure or remedy. 8. The employment of itself confers upon the attorney no implied or power or authority over the subject matter of the cause of action or defense; and, unless the attorney has expressly been granted authority with respect thereto, the power to deal with or surrender these matters is regarded as remaining exclusively in the client.

Baho Pipi Notes

A.C. No. 5736

June 18, 2010

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO

premises of RBCI without a valid court order. Respondent had no legal basis to implement the take over of RBCI and that it was a "naked power grab without any semblance of legality whatsoever." The Ruling of the Court

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by RCBI against respondent Atty. Florido for "acts constituting grave coercion and threats when he, as counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his clients in physically taking over the management and operation of the bank through force, violence and intimidation." Facts: In 2002, RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code). According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, (NazarenoRelampagos group), through force and intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank. Respondent denied RBCIs allegations. Respondent explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply. To ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group went to the bank to ask Garay to step down. However, Garay reacted violently and grappled with the security guards long firearm. Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry into the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction with the bank. Respondent, through the orders of the NazarenoRelampagos group, also changed the locks of the banks vault. Issue: WON Atty. Florido represented his clients with zeal within the bounds of law. The Ruling of the IBP The IBP declared that respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as vanguard of law and justice. It recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months to one year with a warning that the repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty. Respondent knew or ought to have known that his clients could not just forcibly take over the management and

We affirm IBPs resolution. The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. Likewise, it is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice. A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical. WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for one year.

Baho Pipi Notes

A.M. No. 1311 July 18, 1991 RAMONA L. VDA. DE ALISBO and NORBERTO S. ALISBO, vs. ATTY. BENITO JALANDOON, SR., Facts: Ramon Alisbo engaged respondent Atty. Jalandoon as his counsel in an action to recover his share of the estate of the deceased sps. Catalina Sales and Restituto Gozuma which had been adjudicated to because Alisbo failed to file a motion for execution of judgment in his favor within the reglementary 5year period. The salient provisions of the Contract for Professional Services between Alisbo and Atty. Jalandoon were the following: 1. That respondent will decide whether or not to file a suit for the recovery of Ramon Alisbo's share 2. That respondent will shoulder all expenses of litigation; and 3. As attorney's fees, respondent will be paid 50% of the value of the property recovered. Respondent prepared a complaint with Ramon, Teotimo, and Pacifico Alisbo as plaintiffs and Carlito Sales as defendant signed by him alone. On the same day, he withdrew it and replaced it with a complaint with Ramon as sole plaintiff and Teotimo and Pacifico impleaded as defendants which respondent and Atty. Pablo signed as counsel. An amended complaint was filed with Ramon, his judicial guardian Norberto, and eight others as plaintiffs, signed by Atty. Pablo alone (10 years after final judgment). Defendant Sales filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action had prescribed. Consequently, the CFI of Negros Occidental dismissed the case on the ground of prescription (though Ramon filed the complaint w/in the ten-year prescriptive period, it was null and void since Ramon was insane and hence w/o capacity to sue). In the main, complainants charged Jalandoon with having deliberately caused the dismissal of the case and concealing the fact that he had been the former legal counsel of Sales. Jalandoon claims he only discovered his previous professional relationship with Sales during the pre-trial on Oct. 6, 1972

RULING YES because: 1. Before filing the complaint, he had several interviews with Ramon and Norberto re: CC No. 4963 2. He must have done research on the court records of CC No. 4963 3. For CC No. 9559, he had to inform himself of the personal circumstances of defendant Sales. With this knowledge, he should have declined employment by Alisbo due to conflict of interest. The actuations of respondent attorney violated Paragraphs 1 and 2, No. 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provide: 6. ADVERSE INFLUENCE AND CONFLICTING INTEREST It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of retainer to disclose to the client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties, and any interest in or connection with the controversy, which might influence the client in the selection of counsel. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. Jalandoon had delayed the filing of CC No. 9559, instead asking the court to resolve the pending incidents in CC No. 4963. The first complaint with Ramon and his brothers was only partially defective due to Ramons insanity; by making Ramon the sole plaintiff in the second complaint, it was rendered wholly defective and ineffectual in stopping the prescriptive period. While he allegedly found out about Ramon Alisbo's insanity on July 17, 1971 only, he amended the complaint to implead Alisbo's legal guardian as plaintiff almost 5 months later. By that time the prescriptive period had run out. Disposition: It was more than simple negligence; the Court found respondent guilty of serious misconduct and infidelity and was suspended for a period of 2 years.

ISSUE WON Jalandoon is guilty of non-disclosure to client of adverse or conflicting interest.

Baho Pipi Notes

G.R. No. L-27231

March 28, 1969

ALFONSO VISITACION vs. VICTOR MANIT, substituted by his widow LEONARDA MANIT and daughters VIRGINIA DUNGOG, VICTORIA BATUCAN and MERLINDA MANIT Facts: Alfonso Visitacion, filed a case against Victor Manit to hold him liable subsidiarily as employer for the death of his son, Delano Visitacion, as a result of injuries sustained in vehicular collision involving Manits driver, Rudolfo Giron, who was found insolvent after being convicted and sentenced. The case was heard without defendant or his counsel being present which resulted in plaintiff presenting evidence and the case was submitted for decision. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was granted and the proceeding continued with the defendants presenting their evidence. On October 14, 1958, Atty. Garcia, defendants counsel, manifested that Victor Manit had recently died and the plaintiffs counsel amended the complaint by impleading the widow and heirs of the deceased. On January 27, 1960, Atty. Garcia filed a motion to withdraw as counsel alleging that Manits heirs did not hire him to represent them and both counsel and his client failed to appear at the trial the next day. The Court considered them having renounced their right to appear and present evidence to contest plaintiffs claim and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Atty. Garcias motion to withdraw was not passed upon and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, he filed this present appeal.

The record shows that Atty. Garcia had acknowledged the receipt of the amended complaint substituting the defendant heirs as counsel for defendants. They were impleaded and submitted to the Courts jurisdiction through their counsels acknowledgment of the amended complaint; the issuance of a summons was unnecessary. The last-hour motion to withdraw filed one day before the hearing came too late and was properly ignored. The motion was not verified and also carried no notice to his clients on record which was in violation of the Rules of Court (Rule 15, Sec. 4 and Rule 138, Sec. 26, respectively). An attorney who could not get the written consent of his client must make an application to the court, for the relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record. The decision rendered by the lower court, upon failure of defendants and counsel to appear, despite notification was in effect a denial of counsels application for withdrawal. Atty. Garcias failure to appear was inexcusable and he had no right to assume that the Court would grant his application. Counsel had no right to presume that the court would grant his withdrawal and therefore must still appear on the date of hearing. The attorneys duty to safeguard the clients interests commences from his retainer until his defective release from the case or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation. The circumstances had lead the Court to believe that the lasthour application to withdraw was merely a device to prolong the case and delay execution of judgment. There was no premature judgment rendered because the record shows that the defendant heirs were shown to be aware of the existence of the case. Leonarda Manit was called upon as witness during the deceaseds lifetime by Atty. Garcia and submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Court. Neither she nor her 3 children of age can claim ignorance of the pendency of the case.

ISSUES: WON the lower court erred in continuing with the case without the new defendants brought to its jurisdiction. WON the lower court erred in ignoring the motion to withdraw by Atty. Garcia. WON Atty. Garcia was able to safeguard his clients interests.
RULING: No error was committed, and Atty. Garcia was remiss in his duties to safeguard the clients interests.

The circumstances of the case and the appeal taken all together lead to the conclusion that the last-hour withdrawal application of Atty. Garcia and his appeal "as officer of the Court and then counsel of the deceased" was but a device to prolong this case and delay in the execution of the judgment, which should have been carried out years ago. The imposition of double costs is therefore in order.

Baho Pipi Notes

G.R. Nos. 131384-87

February 2, 2000

ISSUES: WON the plea of guilty of accused-appellant in this case was made improvidently. WON Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, was remiss in defending his client and protecting his clients rights. RULING: 1] YES. Clearly, the plea of guilty of accused-appellant in this case was made improvidently. The Court finds merit in accused-appellant's allegations. Also, it finds that there was inadequate representation of his case in court, thus necessitating the remand of the case for further proceedings. Under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure , three things are enjoined upon the trial court when a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and, (3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. In the case at bar, the record does not show what exactly transpired at the re-arraignment of accused-appellant, for what reason he changed his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty," and whether he fully understood the consequences of his guilty plea. On what exactly accused-appellant said in entering his plea of guilty and what exactly he had been told by the trial judge, the records' shed no light. There is thus no evidence to show that accused-appellant's guilty plea was voluntarily made or that he had fully understood the consequences of such plea. 2] YES Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, was remiss in defending his client and protecting his clients rights. The cavalier attitude of accused-appellant's counsel, Atty. Manolo A. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, cannot go unnoticed. It is discernible in (a) his refusal to cross examine Oleby Nadera; (b) the manner in which he conducted Maricris Nadera's cross examination; and, (c) his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but also to inform the accused of his right to do so, if he desires. Only faithful performance by counsel of his duty towards his client can give meaning and substance to the accused's right to due process and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Hence, a lawyer's duty, especially that of a defense counsel, must not be taken lightly. It must be performed with

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELEGIO NADERA, JR. Y SADSAD Facts: Accused-appellant Elegio Nadera, Jr. has four children by his wife Daisy, namely: Oleby, Maricris, March Anthony, and Sherilyn. In 1991, Daisy left for a job in Bahrain, and came home to the Philippines for vacation only. On April 28, 1996, Oleby and Maricris, assisted by a neighbor, Lita Macalalad, told their mother that they had been raped by their father, herein accused-appellant. The trial court finds accused Elegio Nadera, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape [4 counts] with the qualifying circumstance that the victims are under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. The accused, however, alleged that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty to a capital offense without making a searching inquiry to determine whether he understood the consequences of his plea. In its decision, the trial court described the manner in which the accused pleaded guilty, thus: Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by Atty. Manolo Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. However, on August 5, 1997, when these cases were called for pre-trial and trial, counsel for the accused manifested that the accused, realizing the futility of entering into trial and considering that he actually committed the acts complained of, intimated his intention to enter a plea of guilty to the above-mentioned charges. The accused was then asked by this Court if he was aware of the consequences of a plea of guilty to a capital offense: that for the rape he committed on May 17, 1992 against his daughter, Oleby Nadera, who was 9 years old at the time, he would be sentenced to reclusion perpetua and for the three other counts of rape committed on April 17 and 24, 1995 [both against Oleby Nadera] and on March 3, 1996 [against Maricris Nadera, 11 years old at the time], he would be sentenced to death by lethal injection. After having been informed of this, he insisted that he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to the crimes charged and is ready to face the consequences thereof.

Baho Pipi Notes

all the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard the accused's fundamental rights. The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. Lastly, not only did the defense counsel fail to object to the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, according to the trial court's decision, he even expressed his conformity to the admission of the same. Neither did he present any evidence on behalf of accused-appellant. Worse, nowhere in the records is it shown that accused-appellant was informed, either by his counsel or by the court, of his right to present evidence, if he so desires. Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives accused-appellant to be. The performance of this duty was all the more imperative because the life of accusedappellant hangs in the balance. His duty was no less because he was counsel de oficio. In view of the foregoing, we find it necessary to remand the case for the proper arraignment and trial of the accused, considering not only the accused's improvident plea of guilt but also his lawyer's neglect in representing his cause.

Baho Pipi Notes