Legal Ethics Case Digest (second part)

Second Case:

Elmer Canoy, complainant  v. Atty. Jose Max Ortiz, respondent

A.C. No. 5485 March 16, 2005

Facts

This is a case wherein complainant Elmer Canoy accused his former counsel, Atty. Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. In 1998, Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, and was represented in said case by Atty. Ortiz. Canoy, explained Ortiz, was one of his indigent clients, in that it was the latter’s practice since commencing his practice of law to cater to indigent and law-income clients. In the labor case against CCBP filed with the National Labor Relations Commission, the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respective petition papers. Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Canoy made several follow-ups with the office of his attorney, said visits were unfruitful until it came to his knowledge on 2000, upon inquiring with the NLRC itself, that his complaint was already dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute because the parties did not submit their position papers. Atty. Canoy further claimed that Atty. Ortiz never informed him about the status of his case nor of the fact that he failed to submit the position paper.

In his Comment, Atty. Ortiz admitted to not being able to submit the position paper because the period within which to file it lapsed already, with arbiter already dismissing the case, but reasoned out that his election as a Councilor of Bacolod City made him very preoccupied with his functions. His duties as a public servant and a lawyer are “beyond physical limitation”, said Atty. Ortiz, so he had to withdraw from his other cases. He also claimed of not being able to remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of the dismissal of the case, but recalled of Canoy conveying that he already has a lawyer to handle the case. Hence, his office did not insist on refiling the case. Atty Ortiz also pointed out that the dismissal of Canoy’s complaint was without prejudice.

Issue

Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice

Ruling

Upon investigation of the case, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines concluded that clearly “Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise the degree of competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his client” and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded. The Supreme Court, however, finds the recommended penalty of the IBP too lenent and instead suspended Atty. Ortize from the practice of law for one month, in lieu of the admonition or reprimand. According to the Court, Atty Ortiz several canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, Atty. Ortiz was guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code, which states, “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable,” on account of his failure to file the position paper on time, tantamount to neglecting a legal mater entrusted to him. That the case was dismissed without prejudice does not mitigate his liability. Further, Ortiz also violated Rule 22.02, which states,“A laywer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.” Therefore, even if Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services due to his elective position, he should have coordinated with the new council of Canoy and turned over to the latter all papers and property which the Client is entitled and should have cooperated with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, as per Rule 22.02.