DUTY OF LAWYER TO HIS CLIENT: DUTY OF COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

FRANCISCO v. FLORES
AC No. 10753; 26 January 2016

FACTS: The complaint which Atty. Francisco filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against
Atty. Flores originated from a case of forcible entry involving Atty. Francisco himself and the Finezas.
Meanwhile, Atty. Flores is the lawyer of the Finezas.

Francisco lost in the forcible entry case filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binangonan,
Rizal and his appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was likewise denied. However, upon motion for
reconsideration (MR), the RTC reversed itself and granted Francisco’s motion and ordered the Finezas to
vacate the property. Atty. Flores filed a MR, however the RTC denied it, in an order dated 26 March 2009.
He received the order on 03 April 2009 while the Finezas received the same on 07 April 2009.

The case was remanded to the MTC for execution of judgement. Thereafter, Francisco filed a
motion for writ of execution on 03 June 2009 and allegedly served a copy to Atty. Flores on the same day.
On 30 June 2009, the MTC issued the writ of execution. However, soon after, the Finezas filed a Petition for
Relief from Judgement on 08 July 2009, alleging that they did not receive a copy or have no knowledge of
the order dated 26 March 2009. They further alleged that it was only on 29 June 2009, through their
lawyer, that they came to know of the 26 March 2009 order.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Flores is liable for negligence when he did not inform his client immediately
and act upon the denial of the motion of reconsideration dated 26 March 2009 resulting in the expiration
of the period for filing a petition for relief from judgement.

HELD: The Court ruled in the affirmative. Atty. Flores is guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence and Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

If it were true that the Finezas learned about the denial of the MR on June 29, 2009, then it shows
that respondent did not immediately inform his clients about the status of the forcible entry case. It took
him more than 20 days to inform his clients on the matter. Respondent's failure to immediately update his
clients and act upon the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, which resulted in the expiration of the
period for filing a Petition for Relief from Judgment, clearly points to negligence on his part.

In addition, Atty. Flores violated his lawyer’s oath of committing no falsehood by making untruthful
statements made in pleadings filed before the courts, to make it appear that the pleadings are filed on
time.

Atty. Flores alleged in his position paper submitted to IBP that he only came to know of the denial
of their MR in June 2009 and yet the record shows that he received it on 03 June 2009. Further, it was clear
that Atty. Flores and the Finezas knew of the denial of their MR before 29 June 2009 because they were
present during the hearing of the motion for the issuance of writ of execution held 17 and 24 June 2009.
Also, Atty. Flores initially claimed that he was on vacation from 09 February 2009 to May 2009 but
subsequently claimed his vacation was from 11 February to June 2009.

Atty. Flores was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.