EMMA V. DE JUAN vs. ATTY. OSCAR R.

BARIA III

FACTS:

Petitioner
Petitioner was terminated without notice or explanation
explanation so she fled a complaint beore the
NLRC against the company or illegal dismissal. In search o a lawyer she as!ed the assistance o 
""C which assigned respondent to handle her labor case. #n $ecember %& '&&& the Labor
(rbiter rendered a decision in a)or o complainant. *he Company appealed to the NLRC. In a
decision promulgated
promulgated on +eptember %, %--' the NLRC re)ersed
re)ersed the Labor (rbiter and declared
there was no illegal dismissal.

Complainant blamed respondent or the re)ersal. +he said that she came to !now o the
re)ersal o the Labor (rbiters decision when she called respondent in #ctober %--'. /hen she
as!ed the respondent what they should do respondent answered 0Paano iyan iha1eh1hindi
a!o marunong gumawa ng 2otion or Reconsideration.3

ISSUE:
/hether the respondent committed culpable negligence as would warrant disciplinary
action in ailing to fle or the complainant a motion or reconsideration rom the decision o the
NLRC.

RULING:
Respon
esponden
dentt is 4IN5$
4IN5$ with
with /(RNIN6
(RNIN6 that
that a repet
repetiti
ition
on o the same
same will
will be dealt
dealt with
with
se)erely.

No lawyer is obliged to ad)ocate or e)ery person who may wish to become his client but
once he agrees to ta!e up the cause o a client the lawyer owes fdelity to such cause and must
be mindul o the trust and confdence reposed in him. 4urther among the undamental rules o 
ethics is the principle that an attorney who underta!es an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to
its termination that is until the case becomes fnal and executory. ( lawyer is not at liberty to
abandon his client and withdraw his ser)ices without reasonable cause and only upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances. (ny dereliction o duty by a counsel a7ects the client. *his
means that his client is entitled to the beneft o any and e)ery remedy and deense that is
authori8ed by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert e)ery such remedy or deense.

 *he records re)eal that indeed the respondent

respondent did not fle a motion or reconsideration o 
the NLRC such that the said decision e)entually had become fnal and executory. Respondent
does not reute this. 9is excuse that he did not !now how to fle a motion or reconsideration is
lame
lame and unacce
unaccepta
ptable
ble.. (ter
(ter compla
complaina
inant
nt had expr
express
essed
ed an inter
interest
est to fle a motion
motion or
recons
econside
idera
ratio
tion
n it was
was incumb
incumbent
ent upon
upon couns
counsel
el to dilig
diligent
ently
ly retur
return
n to his boo!s
boo!s and re
re
amiliari8e himsel with the procedural rules or a motion or reconsideration. 4iling a motion or
reconsideration
reconsideration is not a complicated legal tas!.

(n attorney may only retire rom the case either by a written consent o his client or by
permission
permission o the court ater due notice and hearing in which e)ent the attorney should see to it
that the name o the new attorney is recorded
recorded in the case. Respondent
Respondent did not comply with these
obligations.

0Negligence o lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them or handling shall
render them liable.3