Venterez vs. Atty.

Cosme
A.C No. 7421, October 10, 2007
J, Chico-Nazario

Facts:
The complainant was the respondent in civil case involving an action of Declaration of Ownership with
Damages. He contracted the legal services of respondent Atty. Cosme to represent him in said case. The
MTC rendered a decision adverse to the complainant Venterez. Thereafter, the complainant Venterez
directed the respondent to file a motion for reconsideration but the latter failed or refused to do so.
Because of such failure of the respondent Atty. Cosme, the complainant was prompted to contract another
lawyer to prepare the motion for reconsideration which was later denied by the court. Subsequently, the
plaintiff in the said civil case filed a motion for the Issuance of Writ of Execution. The respondent never
bothers to file an opposition or comment to said motion. Thus, the complainant file this present
administrative complaint against the respondent for gross negligence and dereliction of duty. On his
answer, the respondent argued that his services as a lawyer of the complainant was already terminated
when one of the sons of the latter informed him that he was withdrawing the case from his and he already
engaged another lawyer to handle the case. The Investigating Commissioner of the of the IBP found him
guilty of gross negligence and imposed upon him the penalty of three months suspension. The Board f
Directors of the IBP approved and affirmed said finding.
Issue:
Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants’ case, as would warrant
disciplinary action.
Ruling: Yes,

No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees
to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney
who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes
final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without
reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Any dereliction of duty by a
counsel affects the client. This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or
defense.

We cannot accept respondent’s defense that he had already withdrawn from the case two days after his
receipt of the MTC Decision and that he had allegedly communicated this withdrawal to Salvador
Ramirez, son of one of the herein complainants, Inocencia Ramirez. It is an apparent attempt on the part
of respondent to wash his hands of any liability for failing to pursue any of the available remedies to
complainants from the adverse MTC Decision.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at
any time with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than
for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw from
a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client's written consent or from a good cause.

All told, we rule and so hold that on account of respondent’s failure to protect the interest of
complainants, respondent indeed violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." Respondent is reminded that the practice of
law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and
morally. This Court has been exacting in its expectations for the members of the Bar to always uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the
trust and confidence of the public.

Penilla vs. Atty. Alcid

A.C No. 9149 September 4, 2013
J, Villarama Jr.

Facts:

Complainant Penilla contracted the services of the respondent as a counsel to represent him in case for
breach of contract against the spouses Garin when said spouses failed to perform their obligation to repair
the complainant’s automobile despite full payment. The respondent then, sent a demand letter to the
spouses but the latter failed to return the payment. The respondent then advised the complainant that he
would file a criminal case for estafa against spouses Garin. Respondent charged P30,000 as attorney’s fee
andP10,000 as filing fee from the complainant. When the case was submitted to the prosecution for
resolution, the respondent told that complainant to give a bottle of Carlos Primero 1 to prosecutor Furtuno
to expedite the resolution of the case. The said case was however later dismissed by the prosecution. After
losing hope for its prosperity, the respondent then presented an option to file a civil case for specific
performance to refund the payment plus damages. The complainant then paid an additional P10,000 to the
respondent which the latter asked for the filing fee. After complainant signed the complaint, he was told
by respondent to await further notice as to the status of the case. Thereafter, respondent never gave him
any update to the complainant as to the status of the case despite several follow-ups made by the latter.
Complainant then sought the assistance of a certain radio program to solve his predicament. Following
the advice he gathered therefrom, complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Caloocan
City Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court (RTC) he found out that a civil case for Specific
Performance and Damages was filed on June 6, 2002 3 but was dismissed on June 13, 2002. He also found
out that the filing fee was only ₱2,440 and not ₱10,000 as earlier stated by respondent. Because of these
actuations by the respondent, the complainant file a complaint before the IBP charging the former of
gross misconduct in violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. On his
part the respondent denied the allegations of the complainant. The IBP-CBD recommended the
suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six months "for negligence within the meaning of
Canon 18 and transgression of Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board of
Governors of the IBP approved said recommendation.

Issue:

Whether or not the actuations of the respondent constitute violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically Canon 18 and Rule 18.04.

Held:

Yes, the Supreme Court sustain the findings of the IBP that the actuations of the respondent constitute
violation of Canon 18 and of Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 18 of the CPR provides that

Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence;

Rule 18.03[, Canon 18 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable; and

Rule 18.04[, Canon 18 – A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

A review of the proceedings and the evidence in the case at bar shows that respondent violated Canon 18
and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant correctly alleged that
respondent violated his oath under Canon 18 to "serve his client with competence and diligence" when
respondent filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a
civil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, respondent
committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the
RTC. The complaint, having an alternative prayer for the payment of damages, should have been filed
with the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over complainant’s claim which amounts to only
₱36,000.

The errors committed by respondent with respect to the nature of the remedy adopted in the criminal
complaint and the forum selected in the civil complaint were so basic and could have been easily averted
had he been more diligent and circumspect in his role as counsel for complainant. What aggravates
respondent’s offense is the fact that his previous mistake in filing the estafa case did not motivate him to
be more conscientious, diligent and vigilant in handling the case of complainant. The civil case he
subsequently filed for complainant was dismissed due to what later turned out to be a basic jurisdictional
error.