PARINAS vs PAGUINTO The lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability

in handling his cases. A license to practice law is a guarantee by the courts to

FACTS:
Complainant hired the services of the respondent to annul her
marriage to Danilo Soriano. Complainant gave the respondent a diskette
containing a narration of what happened between her and her estranged
husband. Complainant also gave respondent money as part of the acceptance
fee and the filing fee for the case.
Inquiring on the status of her case, respondent told the complainant that their
first hearing was postponed to a later date. Unconvinced complainant went to
RTC Branch 64 to inquire on the status of her case. Much to her surprise, there
was no such case filed in court. Respondent promised to return what the
complainant gave. However, the amount was only given after complainant filed
for a disbarment case with the IBP
the public that the licensee possesses sufficient skill, knowledge and diligence
to manage their cases. The legal profession demands from a lawyer the
vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family.
Rule 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service that he is not qualified to render. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a
lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. He has
the duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed. Rule 18.03 of
the Code also provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him and his negligence shall render him liable.
Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto is GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the court penalizes Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto with
SUSPENSION for SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of Canon 16 and 18 of the Code of

Professional Responsibilty?

RULING:

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (“the Code”)

provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected for or
from the client. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-
client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s
cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee,
but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the
client on demand. Paguinto returned the money only after Pariñas filed this
administrative case for disbarment.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once
he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and
care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a
lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise
his clients’ interests will suffer. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the
qualification to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to
his legal work.
ONSORCIA S. ROLLON, complainant, vs. Atty. CAMILO
NARAVAL, respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. The latters money or other property
coming into the formers possession should be deemed to be held in trust and
should not under any circumstance be commingled with the lawyers own;
much less, used by them. Failure to observe these ethical principles constitutes
professional misconduct and justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
The Case and the Facts
Before us is a letter-complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval, filed by
Consorcia S. Rollon with the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on November 29, 2001. The Affidavit[1] submitted by
complainant alleges the following:
Sometime in October of 2000, I went to the office of Atty. Camilo F. Naraval
together with my son, Freddie Rollon, to seek his assistance in a case filed
against me before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 6, Davao City
entitled Rosita Julaton vs. Consorcia S. Rollon for Collection of Sum of Money
with Prayer for Attachment;
After going over the documents I brought with me pertaining to the said case,
Atty. Naraval agreed to be my lawyer and I was required to pay the amount of
Eight Thousand Pesos (Php 8,000.00) for the filing and partial service fee,
which amount was paid by me on October 18, 2000, a copy of the Official
Receipt is hereto attached as Annex A to form part hereof;
As per the instruction of Atty. Naraval, my son, Freddie, returned to his office
the following week to make follow-up on said case. However, I was informed
later by my son Freddie that Atty. Naraval was not able to act on my case
because the latter was so busy. Even after several follow-ups were made with
Atty. Naraval, still there was no action done on our case;
Sometime in November 29, 2001, I decided to withdraw the amount I paid to
Atty. Naraval, because of the latters failure to comply with our mutual
agreement that he will assist me in the above-mentioned case;
My son Freddie Rollon went to Atty. Naravals office that same day to inform
Atty. Naraval of our decision to withdraw the amount I have paid and to
retrieve my documents pertaining to said case. Unfortunately, despite our
several follow-ups, Atty. Naraval always said that he cannot return the
documents because they were in their house, and that he could not give us back
the amount we paid him (Php 8,000.00) because he has no money;
Having failed to obtain any response, I decided to refer the matter to Atty.
Ramon Edison Batacan, IBP President of Davao City and to Atty. Pedro Castillo,
the Commissioner on Bar D[i]scipline;
x x x x x x x x x.
In an Order dated March 12, 2002,[2] the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD), through Director Victor C. Fernandez, directed respondent to
submit his answer to the Complaint. The same directive was reiterated in the
CBDs May 31, 2002 Order[3] issued through Commissioner Jovy C. Bernabe.
Respondent did not file any answer despite his receipt of the Orders.[4]
Not having heard from him despite adequate notice, the CBD proceeded
with the investigation ex parte. Its Order[5] dated November 11, 2002, issued
through Commissioner Bernabe, required complainant to submit her position
paper within ten days from receipt thereof, after which the case was to be
deemed submitted for resolution.
The CBD received complainants Position Paper[6] on December 10, 2002.
Report of the Investigating Commissioner
In his Report and Recommendation dated October 16, 2003, Investigating
Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) year for neglect of duty and/or violation of
Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Report reads
in part as follows:
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to
serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in this regard
renders him administratively liable x x x.
In the case at bar, the deplorable conduct of the respondent in misrepresenting
to the complainant that he will render legal services to her, and after receiving
certain amount from the latter as payment for filing fee and service fee did
nothing in return, has caused unnecessary dishonor to the bar. By his own
conduct the respect of the community to the legal profession, of which he swore
to protect, has been tarnished.
xxxxxxxxx
In fact, complainant claimed to have been shortchanged by the respondent
when he failed to properly appraised her of the status of her case which she
later on found to have become final and executory. Apparently, the civil suit
between Rosita Julaton and the complainant have been decided against the
latter and which judgment has long become final and executory. However,
despite full knowledge by the respondent of such finality based on the
documents furnished to him, respondent withheld such vital information and
did not properly appraise the complainant. Thus, respondent violated the
mandate in Canon 15 x x x.[7]
IBP Board of Governors Resolution
On February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No.
XVI-2004-64 upholding the above-quoted Report. The Board recommended the
suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years for
violation of Rules 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
restitution of complainants P8,000.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
Respondents Administrative Liability
Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as
advocates of any person who may wish to become their client.[8] They may
decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a
position to carry it out effectively or competently.[9] But once they agree to
handle a case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional
Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.[10]
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.[11] Every
case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of importance.[12] The Code of Professional
Responsibility clearly states:
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.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.
Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can
efficiently handle.[13] Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. Once
lawyers agree to handle a case, they should undertake the task with dedication
and care. If they do any less, then they fail their lawyers oath.[14]
The circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the
amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, respondent failed to render
any legal service in relation to the case of complainant. His continuous inaction
despite repeated followups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling
indifference toward his clients cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a
lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably
failed to return to her the files of the case that had been entrusted to him. To
top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him.
Furthermore, after going through her papers, respondent should have
given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits and the status of the case.
Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and complainant had been effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO
decided against the latter. In fact, the judgment had long become final and RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision, complainants
executory. But he withheld such vital information from complainant. Instead, eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the rate of six percent
he demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee and thereby gave her hope that per annum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid. Let copies of this Decision
her case would be acted upon. be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, as well as the National
Office and the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that
lawyers give their candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack SO ORDERED.
of merit of the case, neither overstating nor understating their evaluation
thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of success is not
only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.[15] If they find that
their clients cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the
latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the
incontrovertible.[16] The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking
constitutes a violation of his duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his clients.[17]
Likewise, as earlier pointed out, respondent persistently refused to return
the money of complainant despite her repeated demands. His conduct was
clearly indicative of lack of integrity and moral soundness; he was clinging to
something that did not belong to him, and that he absolutely had no right to
keep or use.[18]
Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their clients money and property
that may come into their possession.[19] As respondent obviously did nothing
on the case of complainant, the amount she had given -- as evidenced by the
receipt issued by his law office -- was never applied to the filing fee. His failure
to return her money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had
converted it to his own use and thereby betrayed the trust she had reposed in
him.[20] His failure to do so constituted a gross violation of professional ethics
and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.[21]
The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal
processes and the courts,[22] but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity
and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their
fiduciary relationship.[23] Respondent clearly fell short of the demands required
of him as a member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge his duty to his
client makes him answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, to the legal
profession, and to the general public.[24] Given the crucial importance of his role
in the administration of justice, his misconduct diminished the confidence of
the public in the integrity and dignity of the profession.[25]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule
15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
EMMA V DE JUAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III, respondent.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
In her Salaysay filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant on August 29,
2002, complainant, former client of respondent, charged respondent with
negligence in handling her labor case and threats against her person.
The complainant alleged that respondent Atty. Oscar R. Baria III, as her
counsel in NLRC NCR CA No. 022654-00/NLRC RAB IV-7-11287-99-R, Emma De
Juan v. Triple AAA Antique/Mr. Yappe and Mr. Godofredo Nadia, negligently
failed to file motion for reconsideration of the decision dated September 24,
2001 of the NLRC in her behalf.[1]
The complainant avers that she was hired by Triple AAA on or
about December 15, 1998 as packer on probation status for six months in its
Packing Department.[2] Based on a performance evaluation citing her irregular
attendance and inefficiency, the company terminated her services on June 11,
1999,[3] after waiting for two weeks for her to report. She claims that she was
terminated without notice nor explanation[4] so she filed a complaint before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against the company for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of premium pay for holiday, rest day, and 13th month
pay. She also claimed moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.[5]
In search of a lawyer, she asked the assistance of Banahaw Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) which assigned respondent to handle her labor
case. Respondent represented complainant on a contingency fee agreement.
On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of
complainant.[6] Triple AAA appealed to the NLRC. In a decision promulgated
on September 24, 2001, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and declared
there was no illegal dismissal.[7]
Complainant blamed respondent for the reversal. She said that she came
to know of the reversal of the Labor Arbiters decision when she called
respondent in October 2001. When she asked the respondent what they should
do, respondent answered, Paano iyan ihaehhindi ako marunong gumawa
ng Motion for Reconsideration. Sometime in November 2001, her husband
called respondent to ask if he did anything in connection with the NLRCs
Decision and he was advised by respondents secretary that, Sabi ni Attyhuwag
na kayong magpakita sa kanya dahil galit na galit sa inyo si Attorney at baka
kung ano pa ang magawa niya sa inyo.[8]
The Court required respondent to comment and referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.[9]
In his Comment, respondent explained that soon after passing the bar in
1999, he was employed as a broadcaster in DWANs radio program offering free
legal services to the poor. He gave free legal services to indigent clients one of
whom was complainant. As a practice, he said he forewarned his clients that he
was just a new lawyer and that they should not expect too much from him
because of his limited legal experience. According to respondent he tried to
explain to complainant the legal remedies available to her as well as the time
her case may take. It appeared to him that complainant did not fully grasp the
usual delays that may be involved in her case. He recalled that when he told
complainant that the Labor Arbiters decision was in her favor, she was so
jubilant at the money judgment. Later however, the complainant became
furious when he told her that Triple AAA Antique had appealed. Respondent
filed a Motion for Writ of Execution of the Labor Arbiters Decision but this
Motion was ruled premature. Respondent then filed an opposition to the appeal
filed by Triple AAA but the NLRC still gave due course to the appeal. While
Triple AAAs appeal was pending resolution he told complainant to call him
every week so that she could be advised of any developments in her case. He
generously suggested that complainant call collect to lessen her expenses. He
even allowed complainant and her husband to stay in his home when they came
to Manila from the province. He said he even fed them when they were
in Manila.
In October 2001, the NLRC rendered its decision reversing the Labor
Arbiter. By this time, according to respondent, he confronted complainant for
lying to him about her employment with Triple AAA and told her that because
of her lies there was a possibility she could lose the appeal. He advised
complainant to get a more experienced lawyer for her appeal because as a new
lawyer he was not confident he could handle her appeal. Thereafter,
complainant no longer contacted him and at some time, he even had to ask her
whereabouts from her relatives.
On December 2001, respondent received calls from the staff of Raffy
Tulfo, a radio commentator. In one of these calls, his wife talked to one of Tulfos
employees and she was told that complainant told Tulfo that the respondent
received money from Triple AAA Antique. As a result Tulfo lambasted him on
his radio program. Respondent thereafter called Tulfo, explained his side, and
demanded that the latter apologize on air otherwise he would file a libel case
against Tulfo.
Sometime in January 2002, respondents secretary received a call from the
complainants husband. When respondents secretary confronted the husband
regarding the Tulfo incident, complainants husband retorted, Sabihin mo sa
kanya mag ingat siya at baka may mangyari sa kanya. Shortly thereafter,
respondent began receiving death threats over the phone and also noticed
armed men casing his office. He reported these calls and presence of suspicious
armed men to the police.
Respondent surmises that complainant believed Triple AAA paid him off
and he pocketed money supposedly for her. Respondent vehemently denied he
did. He asks that Triple AAA be summoned to bear witness to his
story. Respondent asserts that he has not committed any breach of his oath and
that he has vigorously pursued his clients cause to the end. He avers that it was
his clients own negligence and folly that caused her to lose her case. He asks
that the complaint be dismissed.
In a Resolution dated March 15, 2003, this Court referred the case to the
IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. In turn, the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline required complainant to reply. In her reply written in Filipino,
complainant denied that she accepted money from respondent during the
pendency of her labor case, except on one occasion when she borrowed P100
from respondents secretary for travel fare back to the province. She reiterated
that she filed her Salaysay because of respondents failure to file a motion for
reconsideration. She further insists that she does not believe that respondent
did not know how to file a motion for reconsideration as he claims since she
was aware that even a law student would know how to.
In its Resolution dated August 30, 2003, the IBP approved the
recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP Board of
Governors found respondent guilty of negligence in handling the aforecited
labor case and recommended that respondent be suspended from practicing
law for three months. The charge of grave threats was dismissed for
complainants failure to substantiate the same.[10]
The core issue is whether the respondent committed culpable negligence,
as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complainant a
motion for reconsideration from the decision of the NLRC.
No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to
become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer
owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.[11] Further, among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A
lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without
reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.[12] Any dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects the client.[13] This
means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense.[14]
The records reveal that indeed the respondent did not file a motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC such that the said decision eventually had become
final and executory. Respondent does not refute this. His excuse that he did not
know how to file a motion for reconsideration is lame and unacceptable. After
complainant had expressed an interest to file a motion for reconsideration, it
was incumbent upon counsel to diligently return to his books and re-familiarize
himself with the procedural rules for a motion for reconsideration. Filing a
motion for reconsideration is not a complicated legal task.
We are however, not unaware that respondent had been forthright and
candid with his client when he warned her of his lack of experience as a new
lawyer. We are also not unaware that he had advised complainant to get a new
lawyer. However, his candor cannot absolve him. As already stressed by this
Court:
A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of law and procedure
and anyone who acquires his service is entitled to not just competent service
but also whole-hearted devotion to his clients cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to
serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best
efforts to protect within the bounds of law the interest of his client. A lawyer
should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence
in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary action.[15]
Again, the Court held in the case of Santos v. Lazaro,[16] that Rule 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility[17] explicitly provides that negligence of
lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall
render them liable.
Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel,
respondent remains counsel of record and whether or not he has a valid cause
to withdraw from the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the
cold. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of
his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which
event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is
recorded in the case.[18] Respondent did not comply with these obligations.
WHEREFORE, respondent lawyer Oscar R. Baria III is hereby FINED in
the amount of P5,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of this or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
RIZALINO FERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO,
JR. respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for
alleged patent and gross neglect in the handling of Civil Case No. 7500 which
complainant Rizalino Fernandez and others had filed against the Bacolod City
Water District before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Bacolod City.
In his letter,[1] dated October 16, 1996, to the Court Administrator,
complainant imputed the following negligent acts to respondent which led to
the dismissal of Civil Case No. 7500:
1. Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing on January 11,
1996 nor seek a postponement thereof, for which reason the
trial court considered respondent to have waived further
presentation of his evidence and directed him to formally offer
his exhibits for admission on January 30, 1996;
2. Notwithstanding receipt of the order dated January 11, 1996,
respondent failed to formally offer his exhibits on January 30,
1996, prompting the trial court to order the dismissal of the
case;
3. While respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
of dismissal, he did not file his motion within the reglementary
period, as a result of which the said motion, actually filed on May
7, 1996, was denied by the trial court on May 14, 1996 for
having been filed out of time;
4. When asked for an explanation regarding the dismissal of the
case, respondent informed complainant through a letter, dated
July 30, 1996, that he had filed a motion for reconsideration of
the order of dismissal, but the motion, which had been filed a
long time ago, had not yet been resolved by the trial court;
5. Respondent tried to shift the blame on complainant by claiming
that the latter insisted on presenting his sister from Manila as
their last witness. The truth was that complainants sister had
already testified and there was no more witness to present; and
6. Respondent only attended one (1) hearing in the civil case.
In his answer,[2] dated September 3, 1997, respondent averred that the
complaint filed against him was baseless and was purely malicious and
speculative considering the fact that it was not made under oath. He alleged
that complainant engaged his legal services after the first counsel had
withdrawn from the case because of a misunderstanding with complainant. He
stated that he had no knowledge of what had happened in the case before he
handled it because complainant did not furnish him the records and
stenographic notes of the previous proceedings despite his repeated
requests. Respondent further claimed that he failed to formally offer the
exhibits as evidence because complainant could not be reached when he was
needed for conference and the latter even tried to take over the handling of the
case by insisting on presenting more witnesses who nevertheless failed to
appear during trial despite several postponements.
The case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which
submitted a report,[3] dated February 3, 2001, finding respondent guilty of
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending his
suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month.
Thereafter, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), which in its report and recommendation, dated October 15,
2001, found respondent remiss in observing the standard care, diligence and
competence prescribed for members of the bar in the performance of their
professional duties. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months with warning that the commission of the same or similar offenses will
be dealt with more severely in the future.[4] The report and recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner was approved on June 29, 2002 by the IBP
Board of Governors.[5]
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, dated September 17, 2002,
alleging that the Court should not have taken cognizance of the complaint
because it was not verified. According to him, the complaint was a mere
political ploy to discredit him because he was aspiring for a congressional seat
in the 1998 elections. He denied complainants claim that he attended only one
hearing. He explained that he was not able to terminate his presentation of
evidence because complainant insisted on presenting as witness his sister who
was residing in Manila, even though the latter repeatedly failed to appear in
court despite several postponements. He claimed that complainant had told
him that his intention was really to delay the case as he was using the same as
his leverage in a criminal case filed or to be filed against him by the Bacolod
City Water District for his alleged water tapping. When he refused to go along
with the scheme, complainant allegedly threatened to change
counsel.Respondent further alleged that complainants attitude is apparent
from the fact that the latter caused to be disseminated several copies of the IBP
Resolution recommending his (respondents) suspension and distributed them
to radio stations in Bacolod City. For these reasons, respondent sought the
reversal of the IBP Resolution.[6]
After review of the records of this case, the Court finds the report of the
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP to be well taken. The records clearly
show that respondent has been negligent in the performance of his duties as
complainants counsel. His failure to file his formal offer of exhibits constitutes
inexcusable negligence as it proved fatal to the cause of his client since it led to
the dismissal of the case. To compound his inefficiency, respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration outside the reglementary period, which was thus
accordingly denied by the trial court for being filed out of time.Hence, the order
issued by the trial court dismissing the case became final. Respondents acts and
omission clearly constitute violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides in pertinent parts:
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.
Rule 18.02 A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
As this Court has held:
A counsel must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions, even
malfeasance or nonfeasance, would be binding on his client. Verily, a lawyer
owes to the client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that
representation. Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of
law and legal procedure, and anyone who deals with them has the right to
expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also
a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause.[7]
Respondents attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on
complainant is apparent. His averment that complainant failed to turn over to
him the records and stenographic notes of the case only highlights his
incompetence and inadequacy in handling complainants case. Considering that
respondent has been practicing law for almost 15 years, he should have known
that he could easily obtain a copy of the records and stenographic notes from
the court where the case was docketed.
Respondent likewise refers to the alleged obnoxious attitude of
complainant in trying to manipulate the manner in which he was handling the
case as the main reason for his failure to formally offer his exhibits in
contravention of the order of the court. But respondent should bear in mind
that while a lawyer owes utmost zeal and devotion to the interest of his client,
he also has the responsibility of employing only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client and he should not allow the latter to dictate
the procedure in handling the case.[8] As this Court said in another case:
A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client, warmth
and zeal in the defense of his rights. He must use all his learning and ability to
the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in
accordance with the law. He must present every remedy or defense within the
authority of the law in support of his clients cause, regardless of his own
personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer should
not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general
public.[9]
As to the contention of respondent that the Court should not have taken
cognizance of the complaint because the letter-complaint was not verified, as
required in Rule 139-B, 1 of the Rules of Court on Disbarment and Discipline of
Attorneys,[10] suffice it to say that such constitutes only a formal defect and
does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter of the
complaint. The verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure
an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct the court may
simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict
compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served.[11]
However, instead of suspension for six (6) months as recommended by
the IBP Investigating Commissioner, we hold that the suspension of respondent
Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for one (1) month, as recommended by the Office of
the Bar Confidant, would be commensurate considering that this is the first
time Atty. Novero is found guilty of neglect of his clients case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month effective upon finality
hereof with WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act charged in
this complaint will be dealt with even more severely.
SO ORDERED.

LUCILA S. BARBUCO, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAYMUNDO N.
BELTRAN, respondent.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.[1] While a
lawyer may decline to render services for a person for valid reasons, once he
agrees to take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe fidelity to that cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
must serve his client with competence and diligence, and champion the latters
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.[2]
On July 9, 1999, Lucila S. Barbuco filed a Sworn Complaint[3] against Atty.
Raymundo N. Beltran for malpractice of law, negligence and dishonesty.
It appears that on March 31, 1998, 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, Branch 21, in the case entitled, Alexander Bermido, Plaintiff versus Lucila
Barbuco, Defendant. On August 6, 1998, complainant, through Benito B. Sy, gave
respondent the total sum of P3,500.00 for payment of the docket fees.
Complainants appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 58180, was dismissed
by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution[4] dated September 25, 1998 for failure
to file Appellants Brief, pursuant to Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Complainant found out that her appeal had been dismissed only on June
4, 1999, when her son went to the Court of Appeals to verify the status of the
case.
When asked to comment on the charges filed against him,[5] respondent
Beltran averred that the docket fees were paid on time and that on September
22, 1998, he filed the Appellants Brief[6] with the Court of Appeals. However,
the appeal was dismissed. On October 19, 1998, respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration,[7] on the ground that he received the notice to file brief on June
25, 1998; however, on June 26, 1998, he met a vehicular accident which
physically incapacitated him for several days; and that as a result of the
accident, he suffered head injuries which caused him to lose track of deadlines
for the filing of pleadings.
On March 9, 1999, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied on the
ground that the brief for defendant-appellant was filed forty-three (43) days
late.[8]
On November 22, 1999, the complaint against respondent Beltran was
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.[9]
After hearing, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, submitted on October 6, 2003 her findings and
recommendation that respondent Beltran be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of five (5) years.
On October 25, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No.
XVI-2003-234 affirming the recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-
Maala but modified the recommended period of suspension from five (5) years
to six (6) months only.
After a careful review of the records and evidence, we find no cogent
reason to deviate from the findings and the recommendation of the IBP Board
of Governors. Respondents conduct relative to the belated filing of the
Appellants Brief falls below the standards exacted upon lawyers on dedication
and commitment to their clients cause.
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.
In B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[10] we ruled that the
confusion in the office of the law firm following the death of one of its partners
is not a valid justification for failing to file the brief. We further ruled in the said
case that upon receipt of the notice to file the brief, the law firm should have re-
assigned the case to another associate.
The failure to timely file a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on
the part of respondent. Complainants liability is further compounded by his
failure to maintain an open line of communication with his client, in violation of
the provisions of Rule 18.04, which reads:

A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.

Clearly, respondents series of inadvertence prejudiced the case of the

complainant. We can not overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society,
to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.[11]
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.[12]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Raymundo N. Beltran is found guilty of negligence
and malpractice and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX
(6) MONTHS effective immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and to all the courts.
SO ORDERED.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For alleged gross negligence in handling two civil cases, a complaint[1] for
disbarment was filed by complainant spouses Antonio and Norma Soriano against Atty.
Reynaldo P. Reyes.
Complainants alleged that sometime in the latter part of 1990, they engaged the
services of respondent in a case they filed against Peninsula Development Bank
entitled, Norton Resources and Development Corporation, et al. v. Peninsula Development
Bank. The case was for Declaration of Nullity with Injunction and/or Restraining Order before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Br. 13, docketed as Civil Case No. 20-465-
90.[2] While the case was pending, respondent reassured complainants that he was diligently
attending to the case and will inform them of the status of their case.
In 1994, complainants again engaged the services of respondent in a case they
filed against the Technology and Livelihood Resource Center entitled, Spouses Antonio
M. Soriano and Norma Soriano v. Technology and Livelihood Resource Center for Declaration
of Nullity with Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order before the RTC of Davao City, Br.
16, docketed as Civil Case No. 22-674-94.[3] During the pendency of the second case,
complainants inquired from respondent the status of the earlier Civil Case No. 20-465-90, the
latter informed them that the same was still pending and/or ongoing.
Later, complainants learned that Civil Case No. 20-465-90 was dismissed on 16 [4]
December 1991 for failure of the respondent to file a pre-trial brief. The dismissal reads:
On record is a pre-trial brief filed by defendant, thru
counsel, Atty. Marlon B. Llauder, and this morning a supplemental pre-
trial brief was submitted by defendants counsel. Atty. Reynaldo Reyes,
counsel for the plaintiffs is present in Court but he moved for a
suspension of the pre-trial conference this morning for the reason that
plaintiffs are proposing to amicably settle this case. Defendants counsel
vehemently objected to the postponement of the pre-trial conference
and instead moved for a declaration of plaintiffs as non-suited for the
reason that up to this time, plaintiffs have not submitted their pre-trial
brief in violation of the Order of the Court, dated October 11, 1991,
wherein plaintiffs counsel was afforded five (5) days from said date
within which to submit to Court plaintiffs pre-trial brief.
The said motion is well-taken for the reason that the records
failed to show that plaintiffs filed pre-trial brief. They are thus, declared
as non-suited.
This case is hereby ordered dismissed.[5] (Underscoring
supplied.)
A motion[6] for reconsideration was filed but the same was denied in an Order
dated 27 April 1992.
As to Civil Case No. 22-674-94, complainants likewise found out that the case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order reads:
The records show that summons with a copy of the
complaint have been served upon the defendant on May 11, 1994, but
plaintiffs did not file the necessary pleadings in order to prosecute the
same.
IN VIEW HEREOF, for failure to prosecute this case is
ordered DISMISSED.
Furnish copy of this order, Atty. Reynaldo P. Reyes, plaintiffs
counsel and defendants counsel, Atty. Francisco Figura.[7] (Underscoring
supplied.)
Upon filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, though, the case was reconsidered
and reinstated[8] on 15 August 1995.
Claiming that the acts of respondent greatly prejudiced and damaged them,
complainants filed a Complaint for disbarment against respondent before this Court.
On 20 October 1997, the Supreme Court referred[9] the case to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision.
In his Comment,[10] respondent admitted that he was hired by the complainants in
the case against the Peninsula Development Bank in the latter part of 1990. He averred that
Peninsula Development Bank foreclosed the property of the complainants for failure to pay
monetary obligations amounting to several millions of pesos. He said that some of the
properties of the complainants were foreclosed in 1989, and the one-year redemption period
was to expire in the latter part of 1990. About one week before the expiration of the
redemption period, the complainants, through the respondent, filed a case against the
Peninsula Development Bank before the RTC of Davao City, which was docketed as Civil Case
No. 20-465-90. From the time of the filing of the complaint up to the present, herein
complainants are in continuous possession of the already foreclosed properties, consisting of
a Ford Econovan and farm tractors.According to respondent, complainants are still holding
office in the real properties subject of the foreclosure and a portion thereof is being rented by
a big taxi company. He disclosed that at the time he was hired in 1990, the agreement was
that he would be paid the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as
attorneys fees in five years. Respondent claimed that he assisted complainants in applying for
a loan to pay off their obligations with Peninsula Development Bank but because of the
numerous estafa cases filed against complainants, said loans did not materialize. Respondent
further claimed that their agreed strategy was to arrange a settlement with regard to Civil
Case No. 20-465-90. Respondent said he later realized that the complainants had no interest
in paying their obligations to Peninsula Development Bank, and his attorneys
fees. Respondent added that they differed in opinion with regard to the handling of the case
and that complainants did not understand that the filing of the case had already helped them
gain time to negotiate with the bank especially on the matter of interest incurred by their
loans. Finally, respondent concluded by saying that his attorneys fees, paid in meager
installments, remain outstanding and unpaid.
In their reply,[11] complainants refuted respondents allegation of the alleged
numerous estafa cases filed against them. Complainants averred that the certification
attached by respondent showing that there were estafa cases filed against them has no
bearing insofar as the disbarment case is concerned. They likewise denied that respondent
assisted them in their loan application. They engaged the services of the respondent to
prevent them from losing their properties to the Peninsula Development Bank and for no
other reason. Finally, complainants maintained that respondent was paid his attorneys fees.
As early as 27 June 2000, the case had already been scheduled for hearing by
Commissioner Agustine V. Gonzaga of the Commission on Bar Discipline. On 18 January 2002,
after several hearings, the Commission admitted the documentary evidence offered as part of
the testimony of complainants. On 1 March 2002, the day respondent was ordered to present
his defense evidence, he failed to appear. Counsel for the complainants moved that the
respondent be deemed to have waived his right to present his evidence for failure to appear
on scheduled hearing despite due notice. In the interest of substantial justice, respondent
was given a period of 10 days to comment on the complainants motion and scheduled the
case for hearing on 19 April 2002. Despite due notice, however, respondent again failed to
appear, thus, the Hearing Commissioner declared that respondent was considered to have
waived his right to present his defense evidence. The parties were given 20 days from 19 April
2002 to file their respective memoranda, after which the case will be deemed submitted for
resolution.
Only complainants filed a memorandum.
On 28 May 2003, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan found
respondent negligent in handling the cases of complainants; hence, said Investigating
Commissioner recommended that he be disbarred. The pertinent portions of the report read:
There is no question that the respondent was engaged by
the complainants as their counsel in two cases, namely Civil Case No.
20-465-90 and Civil Case No. 22-674-94. The respondent accepted both
cases by filing a case of Nullity with Injunction and/or Restraining Order
before the Regional Trial Court Br. 13, Davao City, against Peninsula
Development Bank and against Livelihood ResourceCenter for
Declaration of Nullity with Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order docketed as 22-674-94, Br. 16 RTC Davao City. The failure and
negligence of respondent in handling the aforementioned cases is fully
reflected in the Order of the Court re: Civil Case No. 20-465-90 which
reads:
On record is a pretrial brief filed by defendant thru counsel,
Atty. Marlon B. Llander and this morning a supplemental pretrial brief
was submitted by defendants counsel, Atty. Reynaldo Reyes, counsel
for the plaintiff is present in court but he moved for a suspension of the
pretrial conference this morning for the reason that plaintiffs are
proposing to amicably settle this case. Defendants counsel vehemently
objected to the postponement of the pretrial conference and instead
moved for a declaration of plaintiffs as nonsuited for the reason that up
to this time, plaintiff have not submitted their pretrial brief in violation
of the Order of the Court, dated October 11, 1991 wherein plaintiffs
counsel was afforded five (5) days time from date within which to
submit to court plaintiffs pretrial brief.
The motion is well taken for the reason that the records
failed to show that plaintiffs filed pretrial brief. They are thus declared
as nonsuited.
This case is hereby ordered dismissed. x x x Regarding Civil
Case No. 22-674-94, Regional Trial Court Br. 16, Davao City in the case
filed against Technology and Livelihood Resource Center the court
issued an Order dated May 5, 1995 which reads:
The record show that summons with a copy of the
Complaint have been served upon the defendant on May 11, 1994, but
plaintiffs did not file the necessary pleadings in order to prosecute the
same.
In view hereof, for failure to prosecute this case is ordered
Dismissed. x x x The records show that the real status of the cases were
kept from the complainants by respondent. Despite the dismissal of
both cases due to respondents negligence and irresponsibility he
continued receiving compensation from complainants are evidenced by
the receipts and vouchers which respondent acknowledged with his
signatures. (Exhibits F, G, H, H-1 and I). Likewise, the respondent
deceived the complainant by giving them false hopes that everything
was alright and there was no problem regarding the cases.
All the foregoing show that there is clear violation of his
oath as a lawyer particularly Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Thus, it is submitted that Atty. Reynaldo P.
Reyes be meted the penalty of Disbarment.[12]
On 21 June 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved[13] the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
In the interregnum, a Motion to Withdraw Testimony and Evidence[14] was filed by
complainant Norma B. Soriano before this Court, stating that:
1. That although the complainant in this case names the
spouses Antonio Soriano and Norma B. Soriano as the
complainants, it is only complainant Norma B. Soriano who
has testified and presented evidence during the hearing of
this case due to the untimely demise of her husband,
complainant Antonio Soriano;
2. That subsequently to the undersigned complainants
testimony and presentation of evidence, she has come upon
information and facts that need to be reviewed and re-
examine[d] in the highest interests of justice;
3. That before going into those information and facts that she
came to learn after she gave her testimony before this
Honorable Board, it is important to stress the following
antecedent circumstances:
(a) That it was undersigned complainants
late husband who conferred
constantly with respondent Atty.
Reynaldo P. Reyes;
(b) That herein complainant was not
present in a conference with Atty.
Reyes at the time his professional
services were hired. So, it was only the
deceased complainant
Antonio Sorianowho was familiar with
the scope of professional
engagement;
(c) That undersigned complainant did not
participate in the conference between
her late husband and respondent
counsel on the agreed strategy
because the late husband was the one
actively managing the affairs of the
family. Moreover, herein complainant
was not really knowledgeable of the
facts and details involved in the cases
handled by respondent counsel;
(d) That for example, it was only later
after her testimony that she learned
that respondent was also attending to
and handling the other cases of the
late complainant Antonio Soriano,
especially those cases filed in Makati,
Complainant herein had the mistaken
impression that the complainant-
decedent had availed of the services
of lawyers in Makati. Hence, the fees
that respondent Atty. Reyes received
after the cases below were for those
cases in Makati;
(e) That it was a surprise for herein
undersigned complainant to also learn
that respondent Atty. Reyes went out
of his way to accompany her late
husband to a financier, who was an
intimate friend of respondent,
in Quezon City for the purpose (sic)
sourcing the necessary funds to pay
off our obligations to some creditors
as the agreed strategy at the very
start. Thus, it appears that respondent
counsel went out of his way to help
the late complainant
Antonio Soriano solve his problems;
and
(f) That I likewise subsequently learned
that when respondent counsel
became a city councilor of Davao City,
he did what he can to help the late
complainant Antonio Soriano have a
council clearance over a parcel of land
that he was selling for a memorial
park.
4. That the foregoing facts and information that herein
undersigned complainant learned after she gave her
testimony seriously prompts her to seek the withdrawal of
her testimony and her evidence in order that she can re-
evaluate the same; and
5. That complainant herein is filing the instant motion in the
interests of truth and justice as it is farthest from her
intention to have this case resolved through an inadvertent
presentation of facts that do not exactly reflect the entirety
of the story and the truth, no matter how innocently and in
good faith they were presented.[15]

The above quoted motion is tantamount to a withdrawal or desistance of the
complaint.
As we have previously ruled, the affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case
executed by a complainant does not automatically exonerate the respondent.
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
interest of the complainant.[16] What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out
by the record, the charge of negligence has been duly proved. This rule is premised on the
nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any
sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a
defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are
undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of
persons unfit to practice in them.The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct
as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court
to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if
the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the
desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.[17] Accordingly, notwithstanding
the motion to withdraw evidence and testimony, the disbarment proceeding should proceed.
Looking into the merits of the complaint against respondent, we decide to modify
the findings of the IBP.
As to Civil Case No. 20-465-90, records show that it was dismissed for failure of
respondent to file the pre-trial brief.
Respondents failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable
negligence.[18] The importance of filing a pre-trial brief cannot be gainsaid. For one, the
lawyers are compelled to prepare their cases in advance. They eliminate haphazard
preparation. Since pre-trial is a serious business of the court, preparation of the lawyers and
parties for the pre-trial in both questions of fact and of law cannot be overemphasized as an
essential requirement for a pre-trial conference. They enable both parties to view the
documentary evidence of the other even before they are presented in court. They enable the
parties to know the testimonies of each others witnesses. Pre-trial briefs also apprise the
courts of the additional points the parties are willing to stipulate upon, or the additional
points which could be inquired into for the purpose of additional stipulations. They
also apprise the court of the respective demands of the parties, thus, enabling the court to
discuss more intelligently an amicable settlement between or among the parties.[19] The
failure to submit a pre-trial brief could very well, then, be fatal to the case of the client as in
fact it is a ground for dismissal of the case. [20] For this reason, respondents failure to submit
the pre-trial brief to the court within the given period constitutes negligence which entails
disciplinary action. Not only is it a dereliction of duty to his client but to the court as well.
Hence, this Court, in Spouses Galen v. Atty. Paguirigan,[21] explained:
An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the
best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his
client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The
respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by
him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid
in the speedy administration of justice.
In this case, respondent did not only fail to file the pre-trial brief within the given
period. Worse, he had not submitted the required pre-trial brief even at the time he filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal several months later. Expectedly, the
motion for reconsideration was denied by the court. Respondents negligence is apparent in
the trial courts denial of the motion for reconsideration, to wit:
The court, in the exercise of sound discretion, afforded the
plaintiffs who were then present, five (5) days from October 11, 1991,
within which to submit to the Court plaintiff pre-trial brief, but despite the
order, and until December 16, 1991, a period of more than two (2) months
has elapsed, yet herein plaintiffs still failed to file or submit the required
pre-trial brief, which to the mind of this Court, is an obstinate refusal on
the part of the plaintiffs to file said pre-trial brief, despite counsels
knowledge of the importance of the same.
The plaintiffs, even in the filing of their Motion for
reconsideration did not even care to attach pre-trial brief if indeed they
are sincere in their intention to do so.
Clearly, respondent was not able to protect his clients interest through his own
fault.
A lawyer is expected to be familiar with the rudiments of law and procedure and
anyone who acquires his service is entitled to, not just competent service, but also whole-
hearted devotion to his clients cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with
competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds
of law, the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary
action.[22]
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. In this case, by reason of Atty. Reyess negligence,
complainant suffered actual loss. He should have given adequate attention, care and time to
his cases. This is why a practicing lawyer may accept only so many cases that he can efficiently
handle. Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to
his lawyers oath.[23]
 Respondents excuse that complainants, from the time of filing of the complaint up Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
to the time of filing his comment, were in continuous possession of the foreclosed property is appended to respondents personal records as attorney; the
flimsy.It only shows the cavalier attitude which respondent took towards his clients cause.

Anent Civil Case No. 22-624-94, the case was indeed dismissed for failure to Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts of the country for their information and
prosecute although the said dismissal was later on reconsidered. However, this does not guidance.
detract to the conclusion that, truly, respondent failed to demonstrate the required diligence
in handling the case of complainants.[24]
SO ORDERED.
Quite apart from the above, respondent also lacked candor in dealing with his
clients as he omitted to apprise complainants of the status of the two cases and even assured
the complainants that he was diligently attending to said cases.[25]

In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel,[26] this Court found therein respondent lawyer in bad
faith for failing to inform his client of the status of the case. In said decision, the court has
adamantly stressed that the lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary.[27] There is always a
need for the client to receive from the lawyer periodic and full updates on developments
affecting the case. The lawyer should apprise the client on the mode and manner that the
lawyer is utilizing to defend the clients interests.[28]

In failing to inform his clients of the status of their cases, respondent failed to
exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and
exercise in such manners of professional employment.[29]

Time and again we have stated that disbarment is the most severe form of
disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great
caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the
standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the
bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such
as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.[30]

The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound

judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. The penalties for a lawyers failure to file
the required brief or pleading range from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension and in
grave cases, disbarment. In one case,[31] the penalty for a lawyers failure to file a pre-trial brief
and other pleadings such as position papers leading to the dismissal of the case, is suspension
of six months. Therefore, we find the penalty of disbarment as recommended by the IBP to be
unduly harsh and we deem it appropriate to impose the penalty of one (1) year suspension,
taking into account that this appears to be his first offense.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Reynaldo Reyes is found

GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality hereof with
WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act charged in this complaint will be dealt
with more severely.