EN BANC for granted.

"9 Respondent received a copy of the Decision on January 13,

2005 but he did not notify complainant about it.10 Complainant only learned
A.C. No. 7178, August 23, 2016 of the Decision after a writ of execution was served on the company on June
2005 and by that time, it was already too late to file an appeal.11 chanrobleslaw

VICENTE M. GIMENA, Complainant, v. ATTY. SALVADOR T.

SABIO, Respondent.
Complainant stressed that respondent was previously suspended from the
DECISION practice of law on two (2) occasions: first was in the case of Cordova v.
Labayen,12 where respondent was suspended for six (6) months, and the
JARDELEZA, J.: second was in the case of Credito v. Sabio,13 where he was suspended for one
(1) year. The latter case involved facts analogous to the present Complaint.
Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment1 filed by Vicente M. Gimena
In his Comment,14 respondent countered that complainant engaged his
(complainant) against Atty. Salvador T. Sabio (respondent) for gross
services in 2000. Complainant, however, did not pay the expenses and
negligence in handling RAB Case No. 06-11-10970-99 (case). Complainant
attorney's fees for the preparation and filing of the position paper in the
laments that his company, Simon Peter Equipment and Construction
amount of P20,000.00.15 The lack of payment contributed to respondent's
Systems, Inc. (company) lost in the case because respondent filed an
oversight in the filing of the unsigned position paper.16 Respondent also
unsigned position paper and ignored the order of the labor arbiter directing
insisted that the unfavorable Decision of the labor arbiter is based on the
him to sign the pleading. Aware of the unfavorable decision, respondent did
merits and not due to default.17 Respondent further explained that he was not
not even bother to inform complainant of the same. The adverse decision
able to inform complainant of the outcome of the case because he does not
became fmal and executory, robbing complainant of a chance to file a timely
know the address of the company after it allegedly abandoned its place of
appeal.
business in Barangay Mansilingan, without leaving any forwarding
address.18 Respondent claimed that complainant only communicated to him
Facts
when the writ of execution was issued on July 27, 2005.19 He faulted
complainant and the company for being remiss in their legal obligation to be
Complainant is the president and general manager of the company.2 In his
in constant communication with him as to the status of the case.20
Complaint3 dated March 7, 2006, he narrated that he engaged the legal
chanrobleslaw

services of respondent in relation to a case for illegal dismissal4 filed against

him and the company. All the pleadings and orders were directed to
Moreover, respondent averred that the filing of the administrative case
respondent because the company no longer had active presence in Bacolod,
against him is tainted with ill will to compensate for complainant's failure to
save for the stockpile of construction equipment found in Barangay
post a bond to stay the writ of execution and the sale of the construction
Mansilingan.5 Sometime in February 2000, complainant signed the verification
equipment levied upon.21 Respondent submitted that if it were true that he
page of the position paper for the case and sent it to respondent for his
was negligent in the handling of the case, then why did complainant, the
signature. However, respondent filed the position paper without signing
company and the third party claimants still avail of his services as attorney-
it.6 The labor arbiter noticed the unsigned pleading and directed respondent
in-fact in the auction sale?22
to sign it within 10 days from notice.7 Respondent did not comply with the
chanrobleslaw

directive.
In his Reply,23 complainant insisted that the acceptance fee of respondent
was P50,000.00. Complainant paid respondent P20,000.00 as advance
In a Decision8 dated October 21, 2004, the labor arbiter ruled against the
payment, but which was without a receipt because complainant trusted
company and noted that: "[the company] filed an unsigned position paper
him.24 The remaining P30,000.00 was also paid to respondent, as evidenced
which cannot be considered as such. Despite the order to Atty. Salvador
by photocopies of deposit slips to his Banco De Oro account.25
Sabia to sign said position paper, the order was deemed to have been taken
cralawredchanrobleslaw
 against respondent.35 Again, it was respondent's own admissions that put the
final nail on his coffin. Respondent neither denied that he filed an unsigned
We referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for report pleading nor refuted the claim that he did not inform complainant of the
and recommendation. During the mandatory conference before the IBP outcome of the case and the due date of the appeal before the National Labor
Commission on Bar Discipline (the Commission), complainant and respondent Relations Commission. He only offered excuses, which the Investigating
were asked to discuss their complaint and defense, respectively. For the first Commissioner found as "reprehensible" and "downright misleading."36 chanrobleslaw

time, respondent raised the issue of lack of attorney-client relationship. He

pointed out that he and complainant had never met each other and that there
was no formal engagement of his services.26 The parties did not enter into The Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent violated Rule 18.03 of
stipulation of facts and limited the issues to the following: the Code of Professional Responsibility for the negligence that he committed
in handling the case referred to him.37 Weight was also given to the fact that
respondent was previously suspended for the same offense in
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

a) Whether or not there was attorney-client relationship between respondent and

Credito.38 Hence, it was recommended that respondent be suspended from
the company in RAB Case No. 06-11-10970-99;
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years with a warning that a similar
b) If in the affirmative, whether or not respondent was negligent in handling RAB violation in the future will merit a heavier penalty.39 chanrobleslaw

Case No. 06-11-10970-99 and whether such negligence renders him liable under
the Code of Professional Responsibility.27 The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of
Governors in its Resolution40 dated April 16, 2010. Respondent filed a Motion
The Commission ordered the parties to file their verified position papers. for Reconsideration41 but the same was denied.42 chanrobleslaw

Respondent, in his Position Paper,28 reiterated that he cannot be expected to

render legal services to the company and the complainant because no formal Issue
contract for legal retainer services was executed.29
Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts
chanrobleslaw

On December 2, 2008, the Commission issued its Report and complained of.
Recommendation30 finding respondent guilty of gross negligence.
Ruling
IBP Recommendation
We concur with the findings of the IBP, with the addition that respondent also
As regards the first issue, the Investigating Commissioner Atty. Randall C. violated Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also find
Tabayoyong (the Investigating Commissioner) ruled that there is indeed an that a longer period of suspension is warranted in view of the number of
attorney-client relationship between complainant and respondent. times that respondent had been disciplined administratively.
Respondent's assertion that he was not a counsel of record in the case is
belied by his own admission in the Comment he filed before the There is attorney-client relationship between respondent and
Commission.31 In paragraph 1 of his Comment, respondent stated that he complainant
was "engaged by complainant in 2000 regarding the labor case of the
[company]."32 Then, in paragraph 2, he averred that he was not paid for legal
expenses and legal charges for the filing of the position paper.33 More, the The contention of respondent that there was no attorney-client relationship
Order and Decision of the labor arbiter referred to respondent as the counsel between him and the company is, at best, flimsy. It is improper for him to
of the company.34 capitalize on the fact that no formal contract for legal retainer was signed by
the parties, for formality is not an essential element in the employment of an
chanrobleslaw

With respect to the second issue, the Investigating Commissioner declared attorney.43 The contract may be express or implied and it is sufficient that the
that the evidence on record sufficiently supports the charges of negligence advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters
pertinent to his profession. An attorney impliedly accepts the relation when consider the position paper of the company and the complainant. This
he acts on behalf of his client in pursuance of the request made by the circumstance deprived the company of the chance to explain its side of the
latter.44
chanrobleslaw controversy - an unfortunate incident brought about by its own counsel.

Respondent acted on behalf of the company and the complainant in relation Respondent's inattention is further highlighted by his disobedience to the
to the case. Albeit unsigned, he allowed his name to appear as "counsel for labor arbiter's directive that he sign the position paper. His conduct evinces a
respondent"45 in the position paper that he filed before the labor arbiter. He willful disregard to his duty as officer of the court. This alone warrants the
never called the attention of the labor court that he was not the counsel of imposition of administrative liability.
the company. More importantly, he admitted in his Comment that the
complainant engaged his legal services. Respondent cannot plead the same Respondent's irresponsibility went beyond the unsigned pleading and refusal
before us then later on deny it before the IBP to save him from his omissions. to obey court orders; he also admittedly failed to apprise the company and
Estoppel works against him. Basic is the rule that an admission made in the the complainant of the adverse decision against them. He even had the
pleading cannot be controverted by the party making it for such is conclusive audacity to place the blame on his client for not communicating to him as
as to him, and all proofs to the contrary shall be ignored, whether objection is regards the status of the case. He furthermore justified his omission by
interposed by the said party or not.46chanrobleslaw saying that he was not aware of the address of the company.

Respondent is grossly negligent in handling RAB Case No. 06-11- The foregoing excuses should be rejected. As the IBP correctly observed,
10970-99 respondent overlooked the attached affidavit of the complainant in the
unsigned position paper, which clearly indicates that the principal office
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the "Code") mandates address of the company is at Quirino Highway, Sacred Heart Village IV,
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Corollarily, Novaliches, Caloocan City.50 Respondent himself had notarized the
Rule 18.03 directs that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to affidavit.51 Thus, contrary to his contention, it appears from the records that
him.47 He must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family with respect he was fully aware of the address of the company. There was no justifiable
to the case that he is handling. This is true whether he accepted the case for reason for him not to notify complainant and the company of the adverse
free or in consideration of a fee. decision against them.

A lawyer is presumed to be prompt and diligent in the performance of his

obligations and in the protection of his client's interest and in the discharge of Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with Rule 18.04 of the Code, which
his duties as an officer of the court.48 Here, however, this presumption is requires that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status ofhis
overturned by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was grossly case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
negligent as counsel of the company and complainant in the case. information."

In Alcala v. De Vera,52 we ruled that the failure of a lawyer to notify his client
Every law student is taught that an unsigned pleading creates no legal effect, of a decision against him manifests a total lack of dedication or devotion to
such that the party may be deemed not to have filed a pleading at all. Yet, his client's interest expected under the lawyer's oath and the then Canons of
respondent, a long standing legal practitioner, did not sign a position paper Professional Ethics.53
chanrobleslaw

that he filed in a labor suit allegedly due to oversight. What more, he claimed
that his client's failure to pay legal expenses and attorney's fees contributed Then in Garcia v. Manuel,54 we decreed that the failure of a lawyer to inform
to such oversight. These actuations of respondent demean the legal his client of the status of the case signifies bad faith, for the relationship
profession. Lawyering is not primarily concerned with money-making; rather, between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary; thus, the ever present
public service and administration of justice are the tenets of the need to inform clients of the developments of the case.55 It is only in this
profession.49 Due to respondent's negligence, the labor arbiter did not manner that the trust and faith of the client in his counsel will remain
unimpaired.56 chanrobleslaw

Respondent is a repeat offender

This is not the first time that respondent was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings. In Credito,57 the then members of the Third Division found
respondent guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Similar to the present case, respondent's legal services were
engaged in connection with a labor suit. The labor case went up to us only to
be dismissed due to respondent's failure to attach the required certification
on nonforum shopping and to pay the total revised docket and other legal
fees. Respondent also kept his clients in the dark as to the fact that their
petition was dismissed.

Prior to Credito, respondent was also held administratively liable

in Cordova58 for instigating his clients to file a complaint against a judge to
frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders.

All told, respondent seems unfazed by the sanctions we have so far imposed
upon him. He did not learn from his previous suspensions and continued with
his negligent ways. In Tejano v. Baterina,59 we imposed a longer period of
suspension on account of the lawyer's previous suspension for negligence in
handling a case. We found the lawyer's pattern of neglecting his duty to his
clients and his propensity to disrespect the authority of the courts
unacceptable.60 chanrobleslaw

For this reason, we impose upon the respondent the penalty of suspension
from the practice oflaw for three (3) years.

WHEREFORE, for violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Salvador T. Sabio is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS. He
is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, which is instructed to include a copy in respondent's personal file.

SO ORDERED
A.C. No. 6155             March 14, 2006 inquiries, complainants went to respondent’s last known address only to find out that he
had moved out without any forwarding address.
MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M.
JOAQUIN, Complainants, More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to
vs. personally verify the status of the ad cautelam petition as they had neither news from
ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL, Respondent. respondent about the case nor knowledge of his whereabouts. They were shocked to
discover that the Court had already issued a Resolution 4 dated 3 July 2002, denying the
DECISION petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.

TINGA, J.: Complainants also learned that the said Resolution had attained finality and warrants of
arrest5 had already been issued against the accused because respondent, whose
Complainants filed before this Court an affidavit-complaint 1 on 15 August 2003 against whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the reglementary period for
Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal (respondent) for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, gross seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
misconduct, and gross negligence. Complainants are related to petitioners in G.R. No.
152621-23 entitled SPO1 Ernest C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando In his Comment,6 respondent states that it is of vital significance that the Court notes that
M. Joaquin v. People of the Philippines, in whose behalf respondent filed the Petition for he was not the original counsel of the accused. He only met the accused during the
Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam) in the case. promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of
homicide and one count of attempted homicide. He was merely requested by the original
The complaint against respondent originated from his alleged mishandling of the above- counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be present at the promulgation of the
mentioned petition which eventually led to its denial with finality by this Court to the Sandiganbayan decision.
prejudice of petitioners therein.
Respondent claims that there was no formal engagement undertaken by the parties. But
The facts are as follows: only because of his sincere effort and in true spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath did he file the
Motion for Reconsideration. Though admitting its highly irregular character, respondent
also made informal but urgent and personal representation with the members of the
On 21 March 1994, SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando
Division of the Sandiganbayan who promulgated the decision of conviction. He asserts
M. Joaquin (eventually petitioners in G.R. No. 152621-23, collectively referred to herein
that because of all the efforts he put into the case of the accused, his other professional
as the accused) were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in the death of two
obligations were neglected and that all these were done without proper and adequate
individuals and the serious injury of another. As a result, Informations were filed against
remuneration.
them before the Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder. The accused pleaded
not guilty and trial ensued. After due trial, the Sandiganbayan 2 found the accused guilty
of two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide. As to the ad cautelam petition, respondent maintains that it was filed on time. He
stresses that the last day of filing of the petition was on 3 April 2002 and on that very
day, he filed with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for
At that juncture, complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the
Review,7 seeking an additional thirty (30) days to file the petition. Subsequently, on 3
accused. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan
May 2002, he filed the petition by registered mail and paid the corresponding docket
but it was denied in a Resolution dated 21 August 2001. Unfazed by the denial,
fees. Hence, so he concludes, it was filed within the reglementary period.
respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration,
with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration. 3 Pending resolution by the
Sandiganbayan, respondent also filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari Soon thereafter, respondent recounted all the "herculean" efforts he made in assisting
(Ad Cautelam) on 3 May 2002. the accused for almost a year after the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision. He
considered the fact that it was a case he had just inherited from the original counsel; the
effect of his handling the case on his other equally important professional obligations; the
Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the frequent
lack of adequate financial consideration for handling the case; and his plans to travel to
telephone calls they made to his office. When respondent did not return their phone
the United States to explore further professional opportunities. He then decided to Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct and
formally withdraw as counsel for the accused. He wrote a letter to PO3 Rolando Joaquin duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of very
(PO3 Joaquin), who served as the contact person between respondent and delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and
complainants, explaining his decision to withdraw as their counsel, and attaching the good faith, that is required by reason of necessity and public interest x x x .
Notice to Withdraw which respondent instructed the accused to sign and file with the
Court. He sent the letter through registered mail but unfortunately, he could not locate It is also the strict sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that distinguishes him from any
the registry receipt issued for the letter. other profession in society. x x x12

Respondent states that he has asked the accused that he be discharged from the case At the onset, the Court takes notice that the ad cautelam petition was actually filed out of
and endorsed the Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin for the latter to file with the Court. time. Though respondent filed with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for Leave to
Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did not do so, as he was keenly aware that it would be File Second Motion for Reconsideration with the attached Second Motion for
difficult to find a new counsel who would be as equally accommodating as respondent. Reconsideration, he should have known that a second motion for reconsideration is a
Respondent suggests this might have been the reason for the several calls complainants prohibited pleading13 and it rests on the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan to admit it
made to his office. or not. Thus, in effect, the motion did not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Having
failed to do so, the accused had already lost their right to appeal long before respondent
On 9 February 2004, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the Integrated Bar of the filed his motion for extension. Therefore, respondent cannot now say he filed the ad
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 1awph!l.net cautelam petition on time. Also important to note is the allegation of complainants that
the Sandiganbayan denied the second motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated
The case was assigned to Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. 7 February 2002. This respondent does not dispute.
(Commissioner Villadolid) who sent notices of hearing to the parties but of the three
complainants, only complainant Carlos Joaquin appeared. Thus, in the mandatory As to respondent’s conduct in dealing with the accused and complainants, he definitely
conference held, the other two complainants were declared as having waived their rights fell short of the high standard of assiduousness that a counsel must perform to safeguard
to further participate in the IBP proceedings.8 the rights of his clients. As aptly observed by Commissioner Villadolid, respondent had
not been quite candid in his dealings with the accused or complainants. The Court notes
The parties were directed to file their respective position papers and on 27 May 2005, that though respondent represented to the accused that he had changed his office
Commissioner Villadolid submitted his Report and Recommendation finding respondent address, still, from the examination of the pleadings 14 he filed, it can be gleaned that all of
guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility 9 and recommended the the pleadings have the same mailing address as that known to complainants.
imposition of penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension of six (6) months. 10 On 12
1awph!l.net
Presumably, at some point, respondent’s office would have received the Court’s
November 2005, the Board of Directors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve Resolution dismissing the petition. Of course, the prudent step to take in that situation
Commissioner Villadolid’s recommendation to find respondent guilty and specifically to was to at least inform the client of the adverse resolution since they had constantly called
recommend his suspension for six (6) months as penalty. respondent’s office to check the status of the case. Even when he knew that
complainants had been calling his office, he opted not to return their calls.
The only issue to be resolved in the case at bar is, considering all the facts presented,
whether respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling G.R. No. Respondent professed an inkling that the several phone calls of complainants may have
152621-23, which eventually led to the ad cautelam petition’s dismissal with finality. been about the letter he sent PO3 Joaquin regarding his desire to be discharged as
counsel of the case. However, though aware of such likelihood, respondent still did not
After careful consideration of the records of the case, the Court finds the suspension return their calls. Had he done so, he and complainants could have threshed out all
recommended by the IBP proper. unresolved matters between them.

In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the accused, respondent Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a
has a higher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused for it is not only the lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed
property of the accused which stands to be lost but more importantly, their right to their the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he should have
life and liberty. As held in Regala v. Sandiganbayan: 11 informed this Court through the appropriate manifestation that he had already given
instructions to his clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of Respondent has time and again stated that he did all the endeavors he enumerated
Withdrawal, as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In not so doing, he was negligent without adequate or proper remuneration. However, complainants have sufficiently
in handling the case of the accused. disputed such claim when they attached in their position paper filed before the IBP a
machine validated deposit slip in the amount of P15,500.00 for the Metro Bank savings
Certainly, respondent ought to know that he was the one who should have filed the account of one Jaime Portugal with account number 7186509273. 19 Respondent has
Notice to Withdraw and not the accused. His tale that he sent a registered letter to the neither admitted nor denied having claimed the deposited amount.
accused and gave them instructions on how to go about respondent’s withdrawal from
the case defies credulity. It should have been respondent who undertook the appropriate The Court also rejects respondent’s claim that there was no formal engagement between
measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation. He should not have relied on the parties and that he made all his efforts for the case without adequate and proper
his client to do it for him if such was truly the case. Without the presentation of the consideration. In the words of then Justice Panganiban (presently Chief Justice) in Burbe
alleged registry receipt (or the return card, which confirms the receipt of the mail by the v. Atty. Magulta:20
recipient) of the letter he allegedly sent to PO3 Joaquin, the Court cannot lend credence
to respondent’s naked claim, especially so that complainants have been resolute in their After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and
stand that they did not hear from respondent after the latter had filed the ad client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering
cautelam petition. He could relieve himself of his responsibility as counsel only first by is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the
securing the written conformity of the accused and filing it with the court pursuant to Rule primary consideration.21
138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court.15
Also to the point is another case where this Court ruled, thus:
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-
client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the
terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to profession. x x x 22
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. 16
Hence, even if respondent felt under-compensated in the case he undertook to defend,
his obligation embodied in the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
We agree with Commissioner Villadolid that the dismissal of the ad cautelam petition Responsibility still remains unwavering. The zeal and the degree of fervor in handling the
was primarily due to the gross negligence of respondent. The Court has stressed in case should neither diminish nor cease just because of his perceived insufficiency of
Aromin v. Boncavil17 that: remuneration.

Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause Lastly, the Court does not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve shooting incident that the accused was engaged in. He described the incident, thus: "the
the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with accused police officers who had been convicted of [h]omicide for the ‘salvage’ of Froilan
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the G. Cabiling and Jose M. Chua and [a]ttempted [h]omicide of Mario C. Macato." 23 Rule
interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and 14.0124 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs lawyers not to
the exertion of the his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. It is ironic that it is the
withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that defense counsel that actually branded his own clients as being the culprits that
his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized "salvaged" the victims. Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is
by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when even the Sandiganbayan had not
defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to done so.
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court,
to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor
The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of respondent for six (6)
not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor
months, the most severe penalty recommended by Commissioner Villadolid, but did not
to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. 18
explain why such penalty was justified. In a fairly recent case where the lawyer failed to
file an appeal brief which resulted to the dismissal of the appeal of his client in the Court
of Appeals, the Court imposed upon the erring lawyer the penalty of three (3) months’
suspension.25 The Court finds it fit to impose the same in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for three (3) months. Let a copy of the Resolution be furnished the Bar
Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.

SO ORDERED
G.R. No. L-26868             February 27, 1969 Finally, on December 5, 1968, this Court ordered Adriano to show cause within ten days
from notice thereof why he should not be suspended from the practice of law "for gross
IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEY LOPE E. ADRIANO Member of the Philippine Bar. misconduct and violation of his oath of office as attorney." By express order of this Court,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, the resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968. He ignored the
vs. resolution.
REMIGIO ESTEBIA, accused-appellant.
Upon the facts just narrated, we now pass judgment.
SANCHEZ, J.:
1. By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a
Once again, this Court is confronted with the unwanted task of ascertaining whether destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney.
certain acts and conduct of a member of the Bar deserve disciplinary action. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the required
service." 2 A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent prisoner", our Canons of
The problem arose because of facts that follow: Professional Ethics demand, "should always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's
behalf. 3
One Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar,  1 and
sentenced to suffer the capital punishment. His case came up before this Court on No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief. And yet,
review. between December 20, 1966, when he received notice of his appointment, and
December 5, 1968, when the last show cause order was issued by this Court, more than
sufficient time was afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio. The death
On December 14, 1966, Lope E. Adriano, a member of the Bar, was appointed by this
sentence below imposed was upon a plea of guilty. The record of the proceedings
Court as Estebia's counsel de oficio. In the notice of his appointment, Adriano was
leading to the lower court's sentence consists of but 31 pages. Counsel had the record
required to prepare and file his brief within thirty days from notice. He was advised that to
since January 19, 1967. In fact, in his third motion for extension of time, he manifested
enable him to examine the case, the record would be at his disposal. Adriano received
that the drafting of apellant's brief "is more than half-way through" and that "additional
this notice on December 20, 1966. On January 19, 1967, Adriano sought for a 30-day
time is needed to review, effectuate the necessary corrections, put in final form and print
extension to file appellant's brief in mimeographed form. On February 18, Adriano again
the said brief." In his motion for fourth extension, he intimated that the preparation of the
moved for a 20-day extension (his second). This was followed by a third filed on March 8,
brief "is almost through" and that "additional time is needed to redraft and rehash some
for fifteen days. And a fourth on March 27, also for fifteen days. He moved for a "last"
significant portions of said brief and have the same stencilled and mimeographed upon
extension of ten days on April 11. On April 21, he even sought a special extension of five
completion of a definitive text." His motion for last (fifth) extension of time came with the
days. All these motions for extension were granted. The brief was due on April 26, 1967.
excuse that he "suddenly got sick (influenza) in the course of redrafting and rehashing
But no brief was filed.
some significant portions of said brief, which ailment hampered and interrupted his work
thereon for sometime." Finally, in his "Special Extension of Time" to file brief, he claimed
On September 25, 1967, Adriano was ordered to show cause within ten days from notice that he needed only five days from April 21, 1967 to put said brief in final form and have
thereof why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for failure to file the same stencilled and mimeographed.
appellant's brief despite the lapse of the time therefor. Adriano did not bother to give any
lawphi1.nêt

explanation.
In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's statements in his
motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and meaningless words; at
For failing to comply with the September 25, 1967 resolution, this Court, on October 3, best, have dubious claim to veracity.
1968, resolved to impose upon him a fine of P500 payable to this Court within fifteen
days from notice with a warning that upon further non-compliance with the said resolution
It is true that he is a court-appointed counsel. But we do say that as such counsel de
of September 25, 1967 within the same period of fifteen days, "more drastic disciplinary
oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed and paid by defendant
action will be taken against him." Still, counsel paid no heed.
himself. Because, as in the case of the latter, he must exercise his best efforts and
professional ability in behalf of the person assigned to his care. His is to render effective
assistance. The accused defendant expects of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory disciplinary action would be taken upon his failure to do either. Still he remained
representation. We do not accept the paradox that responsibility is less where the unmoved. Then, this Court issued the peremptory order of December 5, 1968
defended party is poor. It has been said that courts should "have no hesitancy in commanding him to show cause within ten days from notice thereof why he should not
demanding high standards of duty of attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of
charged with crime." 4 For, indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice is office. The Court made it certain that this order would reach him. He personally
expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self interest. acknowledged receipt thereof. He has not paid the fine. He has done nothing.
Because of this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties to the indigent he
defends. This is 1969. No brief has as yet been filed. And this, inspite of the fact that as early as
March 27, 1967, when he moved for a fourth extension of time to file his brief de oficio,
Worth remembering is the 1905 case of In the matter of Jose Robles Lahesa. 5 He was he represented to this Court that all that was needed was to redraft and to rehash some
counsel de oficio before the Supreme Court in two cases: one for robo en cuadrilla and significant portions of the brief which was almost through and to have the same stencilled
the other for homicide. He failed to take any action in behalf of the defendants in both and mimeographed upon completion of a definitive text.
eases. This Court imposed upon him a fine of P200. Significant is the pronouncement we
there made that: "This court should exact from its officers and subordinates the most Disrespect is here present. Contumacy is as patent. Disciplinary action is in order.
scrupulous performance of their official duties, especially when negligence in the
performance of those duties necessarily result in delays in the prosecution of criminal Controlling here is the 1961 decision In the Matter of Atty. Filoteo Dianala Jo. 10 There, as
cases and the detention of accused persons pending appeal." The validity of the here, counsel failed to file appellant's brief (in a criminal case) despite extensions of time
foregoing observation remains to the present day. 6 It applies to the present case. granted him by this Court. Likewise, this Court issued a show-cause order why
disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The explanation was considered
Here, appellant was without brief since December 20, 1966. The effect of this long delay unsatisfactory. This Court imposed a fine of P50 payable in ten days from notice.
need not be essayed. We, therefore, find that Attorney Lope E. Adriano has violated his Attorney Dianala Jo did not pay that fine. Came the subsequent resolution of this Court
oath that he will conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his "knowledge and advising him to pay the fine, otherwise, he would be arrested and confined to jam. This
discretion". warning was not heeded. On November 18, 1960, the Court resolved to give him ten
days from notice within which to explain why he should not be suspended from the
2. An attorney's duty of prime importance is "[t]o observe and maintain the respect due to practice of law. Despite receipt of this notice, he did not care to explain his behaviour
the courts of justice and judicial officers. The first Canon of the Code of Ethics enjoins a which this Court considered as "consumacy and unwillingness to comply with the lawful
lawyer "to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the orders of this Court of which he is an officer or to conduct himself as a lawyer should, in
temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme violation of his oath of office." He was suspended from the practice of law for three
importance." By the oath of office, the lawyer undertook to "obey the laws as well as the months.
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities." In People vs. Carillo, 8 this Court's pointed
observation was that as an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's "sworn and moral duty to In the present case, counsel's pattern of conduct, it would seem to us, reveals a
help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts propensity on the part of counsel to benumb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de
so essential to the proper administration of justice." oficio and of the courtesy and respect that should be accorded this Court.

Here, we have a clear case of an attorney whose acts exhibit willful dis-obedience of For the reasons given, we vote to suspend Attorney Lope E. Adriano from the practice of
lawful orders of this Court. A cause sufficient is thus present for suspension or law throughout the Philippines for a period of one (1) year.
disbarment. 9 Counsel has received no less than three resolutions of this Court requiring
compliance of its orders. To be recalled is that on September 25, 1967, this Court Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal record, in this Court, of Lope E.
directed him, in ten days from notice, to show cause why disciplinary action should not Adriano as member of the Bar. So ordered
be taken against him for his failure to file appellant's brief despite the lapse of the time
therefor. Nothing was done by counsel for over a year. To impress upon counsel the
gravity of his repeated failure to obey this Court's orders, on October 3,1968, a fine of
P500 was clamped upon him. He was directed to pay that fine in ten days. He was in that
order also required to file his brief in fifteen days. He was warned that more drastic
A.C. No. 6160             March 30, 2006 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Danilo de la Torre be
suspended for one (1) year from the practice of the legal profession for violation of Rule
NESTOR PEREZ , Complainant, 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
vs.
ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE, Respondent. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

DECISION The Board of Governors of the IBP modified the recommendation by increasing the
period of suspension to two years.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
In finding the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests, the Investigating
In a letter-complaint  dated July 30, 2003 addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G.
1 Commissioner opined that:
Davide, Jr., complainant Nestor Perez charged respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre with
misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for representing conflicting interests. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegations in his complaint. The complainant was able to prove by
Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines substantial evidence his charge against Atty. de la Tor[r]e. The respondent admitted that
Sur; that in December 2001, several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, his services as a lawyer were retained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to show that
among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila, were apprehended and jailed by the police at the time that Atty. de la Torre was representing the said two accused, he was also
authorities; that respondent went to the municipal building of Calabanga where Ilo and representing the interest of the victim’s family. This was declared by the victim’s
Avila were being detained and made representations that he could secure their freedom daughter, Vicky de Chavez, who testified before Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of
if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the two accused, Camarines Sur that her family retained the services of Atty. Danilo de la Torre to
respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim; that on the strength of the prosecute the case against her father’s killers. She even admitted that she was present
extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them, including herein complainant when Atty. de la Torre met with and advised Avila and Ilo on one occasion. This is proof
who was implicated in the extrajudicial confessions as the mastermind in the criminal that the respondent consciously offered his services to Avila and Ilo despite the fact that
activities for which they were being charged. he was already representing the family of the two accused’s victim. It may not even be
improbable that respondent purposely offered to help the accused in order to further his
Respondent denied the accusations against him. He explained that while being detained other clients’ interest. The respondent failed to deny these facts or offer competent
at the Calabanga Municipal Police Jail, Avila sought his assistance in drafting an evidence to refute the said facts despite the ample opportunity given him.
extrajudicial confession regarding his involvement in the crimes of kidnapping for
ransom, murder and robbery. He advised Avila to inform his parents about his decision to Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not represent
make an extrajudicial confession, apprised him of his constitutional rights and of the conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
possibility that he might be utilized as a state-witness. disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing
two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy. By doing precisely the foregoing,
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial and without any proof that he secured the written consent of both parties after explaining
confession, he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents; and only after he was to them the existing conflict of interest, respondent should be sanctioned.
convinced that Ilo was not under undue compulsion did he assist the accused in
executing the extrajudicial confession. We agree with the findings of the IBP except for the recommended penalty.

The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
investigation, report and recommendation. 2 On August 16, 2005, the Investigating more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s
Commissioner submitted his report with the following recommendation: duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In
brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues
for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications
have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be Considering that this is respondent’s first infraction, disbarment as sought by the
used.3 complaint is deemed to be too severe. Under the present circumstances, we find that a
suspension from the practice of law for three years is warranted.
There is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter WHEREFORE, Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.03 of the
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. He is
use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. 4 SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of
this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public with more severely.
policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all
the facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP,
case. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their
highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but information and guidance.
also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance SO ORDERED
in the administration of justice.5

To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not offer his legal services to
accused Avila and Ilo but it was the two accused who sought his assistance in executing
their extrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to act as
counsel after apprising them of their constitutional rights and after being convinced that
the accused were under no compulsion to give their confession.

The excuse proferred by the respondent does not exonerate him from the clear violation
of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits a lawyer from
representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts.

As found by the IBP, at the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo, two of the
accused in the murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing the family
of the murder victim. Clearly, his representation of opposing clients in the murder case
invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients.

What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of
their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal
offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the
victims. Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have
exercised his better judgment before conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. It did not
cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting as their counsel and instead, he even
assisted them in executing the extrajudicial confession.
 SECOND DIVISION documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of
the position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitful
[A.C. NO. 5485 : March 16, 2005] visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of
the case. After a final visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April
ELMER CANOY, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE MAX of 2000, during which Canoy was told to come back as his
ORTIZ, Respondent. lawyer was not present, Canoy decided to follow-up the
case himself with the NLRC. He was shocked to learn that
DECISION
his complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998, for
failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their
TINGA, J.:
position papers.3 The dismissal was without prejudice.
There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz had never communicated to
virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of him about the status of the case, much less the fact that he
litigation without even informing the client of the fact or failed to submit the position paper.
cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legal practice
The Comment4 filed by Atty. Ortiz is the epitome of self-
on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling,
hagiography. He informs the Court that since commencing
election to public office, does not mitigate the dereliction of
his law practice in 1987, he has mostly catered to indigent
professional duty. Suspension from the practice is the usual
and low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to
penalty, and there is no reason to deviate from the norm in
himself. Atty. Ortiz claims that for more than ten years, his
this case.
law office was a virtual adjunct of the Public Attorney's
A Complaint1 dated 10 April 2001 was filed with the Office of Office with its steady stream of non-paying clients in the
the Bar Confidant by Elmer Canoy (Canoy) accusing Atty. "hundreds or thousands."5 At the same time, he hosted a
Jose Max Ortiz (Atty. Ortiz) of misconduct and malpractice. legal assistance show on the radio, catering to far-flung
It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal municipalities and reaching "the people who need legal
dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers advice and assistance."6 Atty. Ortiz pursued on with this
Philippines. The complaint was filed with the National Labor lifestyle until his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, a
Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Board VI victory which he generously attributes to the help "of the
in Bacolod City.2 Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy same people whom he had helped by way of legal
in this proceeding. In 1998, the labor arbiter hearing the assistance before."7
complaint ordered the parties to submit their respective
Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty.
position papers. Canoy submitted all the necessary
Ortiz deigned to represent. The lawyer was apparently
confident that the illegal dismissal case would eventually be The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
resolved by way of compromise. He claims having prepared Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
the position paper of Canoy, but before he could submit the recommendation.13 Canoy eventually submitted a motion
same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order withdrawing the complaint, but this was not favorably acted
dismissing the case.8 Atty. Ortiz admits though that the upon by the IBP in view of the rule that the investigation of
period within which to file the position paper had already a case shall not be interrupted or terminated by reason of
lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the position withdrawal of the charges.14 Eventually, the investigating
paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of commissioner concluded that "clearly, the records show that
Bacolod City, "he was frankly preoccupied with both his [Atty. Ortiz] failed to exercise that degree of competence
functions as a local government official and as a practicing and diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients' (sic)
lawyer." Eventually, "his desire to help was beyond physical claim," and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be
limitations," and he withdrew from his other cases and his reprimanded.15 The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted
"free legal services."9 the recommendation, with the slight modification that Atty.
Ortiz be likewise warned that a repetition of the same
According to Atty. Ortiz, "Mr. Canoy should have at least negligence shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
understood that during all that time, he was free to visit or
call the office and be entertained by the secretary as [he] The Court is sensitive to the difficulties in obtaining legal
would normally report to the office in the afternoon as he representation for indigent or low-income litigants. Apart
had to attend to court trials and report to the Sanggunian from the heroic efforts of government entities such as the
office."10 He states that it was his policy to inform clients Public Attorney's Office, groups such as the IBP National
that they should be the ones to follow-up their cases with Committee on Legal Aid and the Office of Legal Aid of the UP
his office, as it would be "too difficult and a financial burden College of Law have likewise been at the forefront in the
to attend making follow-ups with hundreds of clients, mostly quest to provide legal representation for those who could
indigents" with only two office personnel.11 not otherwise afford the services of lawyers. The efforts of
private practitioners who assist in this goal are especially
Nonetheless, Atty. Ortiz notes that the dismissal of Canoy's commendable, owing to their sacrifice in time and resources
complaint was without prejudice, thus the prescriptive beyond the call of duty and without expectation of pecuniary
period had been tolled. He claims not being able to reward.
remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of the
dismissal of the case, though as far as he could recall, Yet, the problem of under-representation of indigent or low-
Canoy had conveyed a message to him that he had a lawyer income clients is just as grievous as that of non-
to handle the case, thus his office did not insist on refiling representation. Admirable as the apparent focus of Atty.
the same.12 Ortiz's legal practice may have been, his particular
representation of Canoy in the latter's illegal dismissal case and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
leaves much to be desired. cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the proper
Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional handling of the matter.
Responsibility guard against the sort of conduct displayed by
Atty. Ortiz with respect to the handling of Canoy's case. Atty. Ortiz should have filed the position paper on time,
owing to his duty as counsel of Canoy to attend to this legal
CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF matter entrusted to him. His failure to do so constitutes a
HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. Responsibility.

CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the
... client with competence and diligence and champion the
latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
shall render him liable.
client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and
time to the client's request for information.
every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of
... the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney,
CANON 22 A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries
ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. to the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer who
performs his duty with diligence and candor not only
... protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of
justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, respect of the community to the legal profession.16
subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers
If indeed Atty. Ortiz's schedule, workload, or physical such as governors and mayors,20 and in such instance, the
condition was such that he would not be able to make a attorney-client relationship is terminated.21 However, city
timely filing, he should have informed Canoy of such fact. councilors are allowed to practice their profession or engage
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, in any occupation except during session hours, and in the
there is ever present the need for the client to be case of lawyers such as Atty. Ortiz, subject to certain
adequately and fully informed of the developments of the prohibitions which are not relevant to this case.22 In such
case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and case, the lawyer nevertheless has the choice to withdraw
manner in which his/her interests are being defended.17 his/her services.23 Still, the severance of the relation of
attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by
There could have been remedies undertaken to this inability the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that purpose
of Atty. Ortiz to file on time the position paper had Canoy is filed with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served
been told of such fact, such as a request for more time to upon the adverse party, and until then, the lawyer continues
file the position paper, or maybe even the hiring of to be counsel in the case.24
collaborating counsel or substitution of Atty. Ortiz as
counsel. Since Atty. Ortiz did not exercise the necessary Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his
degree of care by either filing the position paper on time or services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave
informing Canoy that the paper could not be submitted complainant in the cold unprotected.25 Indeed, Rule 22.02
seasonably, the ignominy of having the complaint dismissed requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall,
for failure to prosecute could not be avoided. subject to a lien, immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate
That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter.
allowing Canoy to refile the case, hardly serves to mitigate Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further
the liability of Atty. Ortiz, as the failure to file the position action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had
paper is per se a violation of Rule 18.03.18 acquired the services of another counsel. Assuming that
were true, there was no apparent coordination between
Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.
Ortiz's election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his
adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him In fact, it took nearly two years before Canoy had learned
of his negligent behavior. The Code of Professional that the position paper had not been filed and that the case
Responsibility does allow a lawyer to withdraw his legal had been dismissed. This was highly irresponsible of Atty.
services if the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public Ortiz, much more so considering that Canoy was one of the
office.19 Statutes expressly prohibit the occupant of indigent clients whom Atty. Ortiz proudly claims as his
particular public offices from engaging in the practice of law, favored clientele. It does not escape the Court's attention
that Atty. Ortiz faults Canoy for not adequately following up same negligence will be dealt with more severely. Let a
the case with his office.26 He cannot now shift the blame to copy of this decision be attached to respondent's personal
complainant for failing to inquire about the status of the record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be
case, since, as stated above, it was his duty as lawyer to furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to him.27 Philippines and to all the courts in the land.

The appropriate sanction is within the sound discretion of SO ORDERED.

this Court. In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed
by the Court consisted of either a reprimand, a fine of five
hundred pesos with warning, suspension of three months,
six months, and even disbarment in aggravated
cases.28 Given the circumstances, the Court finds the
penalty recommended by the IBP too lenient and instead
suspends Atty. Ortiz from the practice of law for one (1)
month. The graver penalty of suspension is warranted in
lieu of an admonition or a reprimand considering that Atty.
Ortiz's undisputed negligence in failing to timely file the
position paper was compounded by his failure to inform
Canoy of such fact, and the successive dismissal of the
complaint.

Lawyers who devote their professional practice in

representing litigants who could ill afford legal services
deserve commendation. However, this mantle of public
service will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how well-
meaning, from the consequences of negligent acts. It is not
enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of
legal representation. They deserve quality representation as
well.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is

ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
month from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the