Adelia V. Quianchon vs.

Atty Hoseph Adora Ramos

Ac no. 9317
June 4, 2014

FACTS: the labor arbiter granted Adelia Quianchon a favorable decision but it was reverse and set aside
in the NLRC and denied the MR filed by atty. Ramos on complainant’s behalf. Their petition for certiorari
was denied and affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

After the petition was filed before the CA, complainant always ask respondent about the status of her
case and the latter always told her that there was no decision yet. Sometime in August 2011, while
Quianchon was in respondent’s office, she noticed a mailman delivering an envelope with the title of her
labor case printed thereon. It contained the entry of judgment of the CA’s Decision. Thereafter, she tried
repeatedly to contact respondent but to no avail. When she finally got to talked to him, the respondent
assured her that “it was alright” as they still had six months to appeal the case before the SC. After the
final meeting, no updates on the labor case were ever communicated to complainant. She then filed
disbarment case against respondent. Respondent averred that complainant was informed of the status
of the case. He claimed that he had told complainant that he "cannot cite any error of law or abuse of
discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals’ decision that necessitates a Petition for Review with the
Supreme Court;" thus, he supposedly advised her to "respect the decision of the Court of Appeals."
During the pendency of the proceedings, specifically on 5 February 2013, complainant filed a Motion to
Withdraw Complaint.

Issue: Whether or not the case against Ramos should be dismissed on the basis of Adelia’s withdrawal.
Held: No. The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought
the matter to the attention of the Court. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not
the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar. Public interest is the
primary objective.
In this case, the IBP found that respondent violated Canon Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Thus, it should have imposed the appropriate penalty despite the desistance
of complainant or the withdrawal of the charges.
Respondent failed not only to keep the client informed of the status of the case, but also to avail of the
proper legal remedy that would promote the client's cause. It is clear that respondent neglected the case
entrusted to him. All lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause. Regardless of their personal views, they
must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause.