Parias vs Paguinto
his clients cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
Facts: Parias engaged the services of Atty Paguinto to annul her marriage. She paid
the acceptance fee. She was informed by the secretary of the lawyer that her hearing
was cancelled and rescheduled. Parias went to the trial court to inquire about her
case but no such case was filed.
Ruling: Suspension for 6 mos.
Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to his client. When a lawyer
accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the
requisite academic learning, skill and ability to handle the case.
The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgement in the prosecution or defense of
the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence
in the pursuit or defense of the case.
De Juan vs Atty. Baria
FACTS: De Juan alleged that Atty Baria was incompetent in handling her labor case of
illegal dismissal for that latter’s failure to file the Motion for Reconsideration on the
decision rendered by the NLRC.
Baria advices De Juan to get a more experienced lawyer for her appeal because as a
new lawyer, he was not confident that he could handle her appeal. De Juan no longer
contacted him.
HELD: Fined for P5,000.00
Without proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as a 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 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 sue notic and hearinf in whoch event, the attorney
should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.
Responded did not comply with such obligations.
ROLLON Vs NARAVAL
FACTS: Rollon seek the assistance of Atty. Naraval in a case for Collection of Money
with Prayer for attachment. He paid P8000 as filing and partial service fee. However,
Atty. Naraval was not able to act on the case because he was busy. Several follow-
ups were made but no action was done. Rollon decided to withdraw the amount paid
to him and retrieve the documents, but he could not return the same.
RULING: 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 follow-ups revealed his cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward
In the case at bat, the deplorable conduct of the respondent in misrepresenting that
he will render legal services to her, and after receiving filing and service fee, did
nothing in return, has caused dishonor to the bar.
FERNANDEZ VS NOVERO
FACTS: Fernandez alleged that atty Novero did not attend scheduled hearing nor
seek postponement thereof, failed to offer exhibits prompting the court to dismiss the
case, did not file the case within the reglementary period, and attended only one
hearing in the civil case.
RULING: The records show clearly 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 this inefficiency,
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration outside the reglementary period,
which was denied by the court because of being filed out of time. Hence, the order
issued dismissing the case became final.
A counsel must constantly keep in mind that his action or omission, even malfeasance
or nonfeasance, would be binding to his client. Verily, a lawyer owes to the client the
exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representations.
BARBUCO VS ATTY BELTRAN
FACTS: Barbuco filed a complaint against Atty. Beltran because the latter was
negligent in handling an appeal before the SC (the appellant’s brief was filed 43 days
late) which caused the dismissal of the case.
Atty Beltran contended that he was involved in a car accident; thus, he was not able
to handle the case.
HELD: Suspension for 6 mos.
An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest ti the best of his ability and utmost
diligence. Failure to file brief within the reglementary period certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of 43 days resulted in the dismissal of
the appeal.
ENDAYA VS OCA
FACTS: Atty. Oca, a PAO lawyer, was assigned to handle rhe case of unlawful
detainer of Sps Endaya. The respondent failed to submit the required affidavits and
position papers. MTC dismissed the unlawful detainer but on appeal, RTC ordered the
complainant to vacate the property.
 Defense: He was not the original counsel of the complainant. That when he
agreed to represent complainant at the continuation of the preliminary
conference in the main case, it was for the sole purpose of asking leave of
court to file an amended answer.
RULING: When respondent was directed to file affidavits and position paper by the
MCTC, and Appeal memorandum by the RTC, he had no choice but to comply.
However, he did not bother to do so in total disregard of the court orders. This
constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed in Rule 18.03.
Respondents failure to file affidavits did not actually prejudice his clients for the
courts rendered a decision favorable to them. However, the failure is per se a
violation of rule 18.03.
DALISAY VS MAURICIO
Facts: Dalisay engaged the services of Atty. Mauricio. Notwithstanding the receipt of
documents and atty’s fees (P56,000), respondent never rendered legal services for
the complainant. As a result, the latter terminated the atty-client relationship and
demanded the return of her money and documents but Atty. Mauricio refused.
Held: Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied. 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. But once he accepts
money from client, an attorney-client relationship is established, giving rise to the
duty of fidelity. From then on, he is expected to be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him.
He must serve the client with competence and diligence and champion the latters
cause with wholehearted devotion.
RUIZ VS SANTOS
Facts: The Ruiz hired atty. Ang as their counsel Cirila Delos Santos who filed a
complain for collection of sum of money and damages against them. They file their
notice of appeal which was denied by the RTC. They then filed their petition for relief
alleging that they were prevented from awaiting themselves of an appeal due to the
mistake and megligence of their counsel that they had a good and substantial
defense.
Delos Santos contended that the appeal filed by the Ruiz was not perfected for failure
of petitioners to file docket fee or appeal fee within the reglementary period to
appeal.
HELD: It is settled that clients are bound by mistakes, negligence and omission of
their counsel. While, exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of
counsel, the factual circumstance in the present case do not give us sufficient reason
to suspend the rules of the most mandatory character.
SPS SORIANO VS ATTY. REYES
Facts: Sps Soriano engaged the services of atty Reyes against Peninsula Development
Bank for declaration of nullity with injunction and restraining order. While the case is
pending, Atty. Reyes reassured the spouses that he was attending to the case and
will in form them of its status.
Atty Reyes then realized later that the spouses had no interest in paying their
obligations to Peninsula Dev’t Bank and his atty’s fees.
HELD: SUSPENSION FOR 1 year
Lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary. There is always a need for client to
receive drom the lawyer periodic and fuel 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.
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
passes and exercise in such manner of professional employment.
SOMOSOT VS ATTY. LARA
Facts: Somosot engaged the services of Atty Lara in a collection case where she is
the defendant. She alleged that after atty Lara failed to fully inform her of further
developments of the case. She only heard about the case when there was already a
decision against her and her codefendants. She even belatedly learned that Atty Lara
sought his discharge as counsel without her knowledge and consent.
HELD: Atty Lara was suspended for 3mos
While it may be said that he did not completely abandon the case, his handing of
Somosot’s defense left much to be desired,
Even assuming the non-payment to be true, such failure should not be a reason not
to inform the client of an important development, or worse, to withhold vital
information from her.
A client must never be left in the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and
confidence reposed n the retained lawyer in particular and the legal profession in
general.