PRUDENCIO B. PORTUGUESE, JR. vs. ATTY. JERRY R. CENTRO A.C. No.

12875, January
26, 2021,

Facts:

Atty. Centro represented the complainant in a civil case. Portuguese claimed that the parties were
compelled to file their memoranda at the conclusion of the hearings. Respondent notified Portuguese
that the memorandum had already been submitted to the court following multiple follow-ups.
Portuguese and his family were shocked when, on January 25, 2018, a sheriff served them with a copy of
a Notice, giving them three days to abide with the Writ of Execution in connection with the civil lawsuit.

According to Portuguese, Atty. On August 10, 2017, Centro obtained a copy of the RTC's July 10, 2017,
Decision, but the latter never informed him of it. In addition, Atty. Centro did not submit any paperwork
to contest or appeal the RTC's ruling. Even worse, the Portuguese learned that Atty. Contrary to what
Centro claimed, it did not actually file a Memorandum. According to Portuguese, Atty. Centro also
neglected to submit any arguments in opposition to the Motion for Execution, advise him of the hearing
date, and inform him of the Trial Court's decision to grant the Motion for Execution.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Centro neglected to perform his duty to exert efforts to avail of every
remedy and defense authorized by the law in order to protect his client's cause.

Held:
Every lawyer is required under the Lawyer's Oath to behave themselves in accordance with their
knowledge and discretion and with the utmost good faith toward both their clients and the courts. Atty.
Unfortunately, Centro violated his oath by doing the following things: 1) failing to file a memo and even
lying about doing so; 2) failing to inform Portuguese of the RTC's decision; 3) failing to defend
Portuguese's interests against the adverse RTC's decision; 4) failing to inform Portuguese of the motion
for execution, the scheduled hearing, and the resolution granting the motion; and 5) failing to file an
answer to the current complaint.