Lawyer's duties in handling cases

Santiago vs. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68 (1995)

SANTIAGO v FOJAS

A.C. No. 4103. September 7, 1995

DAVIDE, JR., J.

FACTS:

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) declared complainants’ illegal expulsion of Salvador from Far Easter University Faculty Association. Salvador sought for damages but Atty. Fojas moved to dismiss it for res judicata and lack of jurisdiction because it was already decided by Med-Arbiter and it is only cognizable by the DOLE.

Complainants were directed to file their answer within a non-extendible period of fifteen days from notice. Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case.

The complainants were declared in default, and Salvador was authorized to present his evidence ex-parte and won damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:

Whether the Atty. Fojas committed culpable negligence, and breached Canon 18 and 15 Rule 18.03 and 15.05 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

YES. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

He is not excused by reasons of pressure and large volume of legal work. the negligence cannot be excused by a “losing cause”. Even if it was a losing case, he should be honest to the client.

Reprimanded only.

Cantiller vs. Potenciano, 180 SCRA 246 (1989)

Facts:.
. A notice to vacate was issued against Cantiller. Cantiller then asked the Atty. Potenciano to handle their case. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a “[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment”.

Cantiller paid Potenciano as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in locating the judge.

Complainant paid Potenciano allegedly as purchase price of the apartment and to cover the expenses of the suit.  Cantiller found out that the amounts were not necessary to be paid.

Contrary to Potenciano’s promise that he would secure a restraining order, he withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.

Issue: Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

Held: YES. Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition since it is a matter of public interest.

 Suspended indefinitely and ordered to return the money.

Millare vs. Montero, 246 SCRA 1 (1995)

FACTS:

Millare, obtained a favorable judgment which ordered  Co to vacate the premises. Co, through Atty. Montero, filed a total of six appeals, complaints or petitions to frustrate the execution of the judgment

ISSUE: WON respondent shall be held guilty of malpractice

HELD:

Yes.

Under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment.

Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the execution of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping.

Respondent is suspended for one year.

  Choa vs. Chiongson, 253 SCRA 371 (1996)

FACTS:

respondent Judge found Choa guilty of the crime of perjury and penalized with imprisonment. The complainant moved for a reconsideration of the judgment but was subsequently denied for lack of merit. He prayed for the judge’s removal from office alleging, that he was sentenced to suffer a penalty higher than that provided by law, without applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent Judge erred in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the crime of perjury.

Whether Atty. Quiroz can be the subject of disciplinary action.

HELD:

No. the respondent Judge was correct in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Yes. He must have been aware of the utter lack of merit of the charges As a Member of the Philippine Bar he is bound: (1) by his oath, not to, wittingly or willingly, promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; (2) by Section 20(c), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to counsel or maintain such action or proceedings only as appear to him to be just; and (3) to uphold the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union vs. Lo Bu, 63 SCRA 313 (1975)

G.R. No. L-40136        March 25, 1975

FACTS:

Despite the finality of the decision of the SC, petition was made that Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall the writ of execution alleging lack of  jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the sale, followed by another motion praying for the return of the levied properties this time asserting that petitioner labor union failed to put up an indemnity bond and then a third, this time to allow the sheriff to keep the levied properties at his factory, all of which were denied by the Court.

Counsel Busmente had the temerity to deny such allegations.

ISSUE:

Whether the actions are mere dilatory tactic and not commendable

HELD:

Yes. The conduct of denying the facts alleged in a petition is far from commendable. A lawyer should not act like an errand boy at the beck and call of his client, ready and eager to do his every bidding; failure to keep this in mind puts into serious question his good standing in the bar.

Gamalinda vs. Alcantara, 206 SCRA 468 (1992)

GAMALINDA VS. ALCANTARA

A.C.No. 3695

February 24, 1992

FACTS: In a civil Salud and Balot were able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction against the defendant, ordering them to desist from threshing and carting away the palay harvest but Gamalinda still entered the land, believing it was his because of deed executed in his favour.

Gamalinda was declared in contempt. Atty. Lim moved for the execution and further  filed an "Urgent Motion to Require Gamalinda to Surrender TCT and for reconveyance but with no avail prompting him to moved to declare the TCT null and void.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Lim’s actions constitute grave abuse of profession

HELD: No. It is clear from the foregoing that the questioned acts of Atty. Lim were all done in line with his duty to prosecute his clients' cause. he is expected to take such reasonable steps and such ordinary care as his client's interests may require.

He should be commended, not condemned, for diligently and competently performing his duties as an attorney.

J.P. Juan & Sons, Inc. vs. Lianga Industries, Inc., 28 SCRA 807 (1969)PUTANG INA

FACTS: Plaintiff sought recovery from defendant, representing the unpaid balance of office equipment as well as legal interests and attorney’s fees. Defendant did not deny authenticity of purchace annexed in the complaint. Plaintiff states that the material allegations of the complaint must be admitted by defendant as it must be within his knowledge and that he cannot pretend ignorance. The defendant’s appeal was frivolous as no error was committed by the Court below in ruling the specific denials of defendant. Specific denials being denials amounting to admissions of the material allegations of the complaint.

Issue: WON the defendant has cause to complain of the judgement

Held: NO. Its claim that it tendered a certain issue with an affirmative defense of having no obligation to pay plaintiff the amount was correctly held by the court to be a mere conclusion not premised on an allegation of a material fact. The specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint as to its purchase of the equipment and refusal to pay balance without setting forth the substance of the matters relied upon to support its general denial when the matters were plainly within its knowledge failed to tender an issue.

zor vs. Beltran, 63 SCRA 210 (1975)

Facts: A complaint for malpractice and gross misconduct was filed against respondent for taking or causing to be detached from the rollo of A Special Proceeding, the financial report of complainant, executor of a will, as well as the court order terminating the same; for filing a motion requiring complainant to render an accounting and to deliver the property left in the will to the beneficiaries; and for having instructed his clients to enter forcibly a parcel of land forming part of the estate, knowing the same as having been previously sold. The Solicitor General, to whom the matter was referred conducted a thorough investigation of the parties and their witnesses. He found the charges baseless and without sufficient support in evidence. A dismissal of the complaint was therefore recommended.|||

Issue: WON the SC must accept the recommendation of the Solicitor General and dismiss the case

Held: Yes. Mere assumptions cannot be the basis of any finding against any member of the Bar who, as an officer of the court, is presumed to act with utmost decorum and good faith in all his dealings. This presumption in favor of the lawyer cannot be overcome by mere assumption or imputation without any evidence in support of the same.

Visitacion vs. Manit, 27 SCRA 523 (1969)

FACTS: Atty. Garcia is the former counsel of the now deceased Manit. Manit was involved in a case wherein he was subsidiarily held liable as an employer for the death of Visitacion. After multiple obstacles and delays, including the death of Manit, Garcia filed a "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel", alleging that "the heirs of Manit have not hired (him) to represent them and consequently, (his) continued appearance in representation of a dead client would be illegal".

ISSUE: WHETHER  aTTY. GARCIA IS considered withdrawn.

RULING: NO.  The circumstances  lead to the conclusion that the last-hour withdrawal application of Atty. Garcia and his appeal "as officer of the Court and then counsel of the deceased" was but a device to prolong this case and delay in the execution of the judgment, which should have been carried out years ago.

A lawyer has no right to presume that the court would grant his last hour motion to withdraw as counsel. An attorney seeking to withdraw must make an application to the court for the relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record.

De Roy vs. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 757 (1988)

Facts:

De Roy was the owner of a burnt building. The firewall of said building collapsed on the house of Bernal thereby killing his daughter. Bernal sued De Roy and won. De Roy received a copy of the decision in 1987.

At the last day for them to file said MFR, De Roy’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration which was denied.

Pursuant to the case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs Japzon (August 1985), the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.

De Roy alleged that her counsel was ignorant of the rule laid down in the Habaluyas Case; that said rule should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette.

Issue:

Whether or not De Roy’s contention is correct -- No.

Ruling:

There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel as a lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions in the Supreme Court.

Cuaresma vs. Daquis, 63 SCRA 1157 (1966)

Facts: Atty. Directo, Cuaresma’s lawyer indicated in his petition:

1.“That your petitioner has no knowledge of the existence of said case

 2.That your petitioner was not given a day in court to present his side of the case, in violation of law, and of the dictum of due process of the constitution.”

it turned out that petitioner was fully aware of the existence of said civil case.

In his explanation, Atty. Directo stated that what he meant was that he and his client belatedly learned  of the case; that had there been a mistake committed, “it had been an honest one, and would say in all sincerity that there was no deliberate attempt and intent on his part of misleading this Honorable Court, honestly and totally unaware of any false allegation in the petition.”

Issue: WON Atty. Directo is guilty of Falsehood.

Held: No, the Court, while harboring the suspicion that such explanation was a mere afterthought, took into consideration the presumption of good faith.

An attorney must practice utmost care in the preparation of his pleadings to leave the least doubt as to his intellectual honesty. Every member of the bar should realize that candor in the dealings with the Courts is of the very essence of honorable membership in the profession

Vda. de Zubiri vs. Zubiri, 18 SCRA 1157 (1966)

December 17, 1966, G.R. No. L-16745, EN BANC (Regala,

 J)

FACTS:

Vda. de Zubiri filede a complaint for the recovery of her alleged share in 2 commercial lots against Zubiri and the Standard Vacuum Oil Co., the occupant of portions of the said properties.

Since in both the answer and the stipulation of facts Zubiri admitted practically all the allegations of the complaint, thus in favor of Complainant. Ben filed a petition to set aside judgment upon two grounds: first, the three pleadings filed were all prepared by the plaintiff's counsel and that he, the appellant, was made to sign all of them when he was ill and, therefore, incapable of realizing the full consequences of the act;

and, second, that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by a prior judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyer commits malpractice

HELD:yes.

The active participation of a lawyer in one party's affairs relating to a pending case in which the said lawyer is the counsel for the opposing party is brazenly unethical to say the least. The Canons of Legal Ethics very explicitly declare that "it is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests"

Deluao vs. Casteel, G.R. No. L-21906; December 4, 1968

Deluao v Casteel

G.R. No. L-21906. December 24, 1968

Castro, J.

FACTS

Casteel filed a fishpond application but it was all denied. Three others got fishpond permits covering lands found inside the area applied for by Casteel, and Deluao also applied for the same. Due to this threats, Casteel entered into a “contract of service” with Deluao.

When Casteel finally obtained permit, all three other permits were cancelled. Casteel also forbade the administration of and ejected the Deluaos.

On April 3, 1951, Deluao complained of breach of contract against Casteel.. Judge Fernandez ordered on March 21, 1956, THAT the hearing of the case was transferred to May 2 and 3, 1956 before his Branch I,

However the defendant’s counsel received a notice of hearing from the Office of the Clerk of Court that it is in Branch II.

Casteel’s counsel filed a motion for postponement before Judge Gomez of Branch II. On his May 4 order, the latter referred the motion to Judge Fernandez of Branch I, who had always handled the case.

On May 3 1956, Judge Fernandez directed the plaintiffs to present their evidence ex parte due to the non-appearance of the defendant’s counsel, to which they earned a favorable decision.

ISSUE: (KINDLY RELATE TO CANON 18)

1. Whether the the Clerk of Court should be followed

2. Whether the defendant’s counsel erred in not appearing before the mentioned date while waiting for the approval of their motion to postponement.

3. Whether the defendant’s counsel neglected their duties to their client.

HELD:

1.NO.. The incidents of postponements and adjournments are controlled by the court and not by the clerk of court, pursuant to section 4, Rule 31 (now sec. 3, Rule 22) of the Rules of Court.

2. YES. The postponement of hearings does not depend upon agreement of the parties, but upon the court's discretion. It was the duty of Atty. Ruiz, or of the other lawyers of record, to appear before Judge Fernandez AND THEY have no right to presume that their motions for postponement will be granted.

3. YES. The pretension of the appellant and his 12 counsel of record that they lacked ample time to prepare for trial is unacceptable because they had one month and ten days to do so.

Diman vs. Alumbres, 229 SCRA 459 (1998)

Facts:

The petition for review on certiorari in this case was initially dismissed, the Court was convinced that the order of dismissal should be reconsidered.

respondents were required to file their Comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice. They filed a motion for extension of time of 30 days to file comment, counted from October 31. The Court granted the extension sought, but only for 15 days. The comment field was five (5) days late.

Issue: W/N the counsel can assume his motion will be granted

Held: No, A lawyer is not justified in assuming that the extension of time sought will be granted, or that it will be granted for the length of time suggested by him because it is a familiar doctrine that no party has a right to an extension of time to comply with an obligation within the period set therefore by law. it is incumbent upon a lawyer to exercise due diligence to inform himself and should he neglect to do so, he runs the risk of time running out on him, for which he will have nobody but himself to blame.

Daulog vs. Custombuilt Manufacturing Corp., 26 SCRA 1 (1968)

 [ G.R. No. L-29612, November 15, 1968 ]

FACTS:

Saulog sued for damages and attorneys' fees against defendants;

the City Court of Manila rendered judgment on plaintiff's evidence introduced ex-parte against defendants — all of whom failed to appear on the date set for the trial despite due notice.

During the pre-trial defendant’s counsel was in the courtroom but left before the case was called. He claimed that his wife did not give birth until five days later. It unreasonable that— his mind was in blank, such that it was impossible for him to have taken steps to tell the court personally or otherwise that his absence during the pre- trial was excusable.

ISSUE:

Whether Custombuilt’s client violated his duties

HELD:

No. Counsel did not have the foresight required of him. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court, both client and counsel must appear at the pre-trial. This is mandatory. Failure of the client to appear is ground for dismissal.

Also, Section 2, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court, which says that "a party who failed to appear at the pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default.

People vs. Casimiro, 45 SCRA 554 (1972)

PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO

G.R. No. L-33416.

June 29, 1972|||

FACTS:  Atty. Sanglay is being administratively proceeded against for failure to file the brief within the reglementary period|||

He said that the failure to file the brief was not his fault. His client’s parents hired a new lawyer. Respondent contended that he reminded them about the filing and they assured him that the new lawyer will file the brief in the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be reprimanded for failure to file brief  for the appelants?

HELD: Yes. The counsel knows that the period for filing the brief was running, thus the Court expects that the matter will be taken care of him as he was the counsel of record. He should have informed the Court of the developments set forth in his explanation and as that he be allowed to withdraw as counsel.

People vs. Nadera, Jr., 324 SCRA 490 (2000)

Facts: Nadera, Jr. has four children by his wife Daisy. Oleby and Maricris, assisted by a neighbor, Macalalad, told their mother that they had been raped by their father, herein accused.

Accused then pleaded guilty and his lawyer did not cross examine the first daughter because he was convinced that she was in fact telling the truth.

the cross examination of the second daughter focused on what she did when she was able to see that her sister was being raped. Not only did defense counsel fail to object to the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, he even expressed his conformity to the admission of the same. Neither did he present any evidence on behalf of accused-appellant. Worse, accused was not informed, of his right to present evidence, if he so desires.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Brotonel should be reprimanded

Held:YES. Only faithful performance by counsel of his duty towards his client can give meaning and substance to the accused right to due process and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

The lawyer has the duty to defend his client and protect his rights, n matter how guilty or evil he perceives him to be.

Topacio Nueno vs. Santos, 58 Phil. 557 (1933)

FACTS: Nueno  filed a complaint against his fellow board member Atty. Santos for the latter’s alleged connection in illegal gambling  in the game of chance called “monte”; that he represented as client one Hernandez who was charged  for running this “monte” game; that he encouraged Hernandez to plead guilty in the crime charged even though Atty. Santos knew that Hernandez was merely a waiter in the house where the alleged “monte” was being operated.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Santos should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Santos consented to the doing of a falsehood and deceived the court when he had an accused plead guilty to an offense which he had not committed. he violated his oath of office by deceiving the court and consenting a falsehood to be committed. The Supreme Court however only suspended Atty. Santos for three months – this is because the said complaint against him by Nueno is tainted with political motives and that the complaint was filed two years after occurrence of the controversy involved.