PALE

NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING CASES

Source:
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 2009 AGPALO
pp. 518 - 525 (7 pages)
CANON 18: A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Degree of Diligence
Negligence in the performance of duties.
CASE 1: Reyes vs. Vitan, 456 SCRA 87, A.C. No. 5835 April 15, 2005 - suspension case
IGNORANCE OF LAW OF LAWYER AS GROUND FOR DISCIPLINE
Presumption of Regularity
CASE 2: Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) vs. Montemayor, 533 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 5739
September 12, 2007 - disbarment case
Continuation...
CASE 3: Aromin vs. Boncavil, 315 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 5135 September 22, 1999 - suspension case
CASE 4: Jardin vs. Villar, Jr., 410 SCRA 1, Adm. Case No. 5474 August 28, 2003 - suspension case
Agpalo comapred CASE 2 with the others emphasizing gross negligence from simple negligence.
DUTY TO PROTECT CLIENTS INTERESTS
Source:
BEDA MEMORY AID: LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 2019
pp. 54 - 57 (3 pages)
RULE 18.01: A LAWYER SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE A LEGAL SERVICE WHICH HE KNOWS HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO
RENDER. HOWEVER, HE MAY RENDER SUCH SERVICE IF, WITH THE CONSENT OF HIS COUNSEL A LAWYER WHO IS
COMPETENT ON THE MATTER.
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.
RULE 18.04. 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.
CASES ON NON ATTENDANCE ON TRIALS - possible reasons on differences in sanctions;
CASE 5: Villafuerte vs. Cortez, 288 SCRA 687, Adm. Case No. 3455 April 14, 1998 - suspension case
CASE 6: Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association vs. Dioneda, 399 SCRA 296,
Adm. Case No. 5162 March 20, 2003 - disbarment case
Source:
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 2009 AGPALO
pp. 359- 368 (9 pages)

EFFECTS:
MISTAKE OR NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL BINDING UPON CLIENT
CASE 7: Saulog vs. Custombuilt Manufacturing Corporation, 26 SCRA 1, No. L-29612
November 15, 1968
-leaving the courtroom before the start of pre trail because someone told him that his wide was giving birth
CASE 8: People vs. Villanueva, 339 SCRA 482, G.R. No. 135330 August 31, 2000
-general rule AGPALO p. 363
EXCEPTIONS TO RULE THAT NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL BINDS CLIENT
CASE 9: De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 171, G.R. No. 103276 April 11, 1996
-And he is just about to lose it simply because his former lawyers pursued a carelessly
contrived procedural strategy of insisting on what has already become an imprudent remedy
CASE 10: Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 543, G.R. No. 111682 February 6, 1997
Atty. Tenorio’s negligence was failing to appear in court despite clear warning that such failure would amount
to waiver of her client’s right to present evidence in her defense.