Legal Ethics Case Digest (first part)

"Legal Ethics is the branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the professin and to the public.

Legal Ethics will guard agaisnt the abuses and ills of the profession such as dishonesty, deceit, immorality, negligence, slothness, lack of diligence and the many forms of malpractice of the members of the bar.

On the positive side, it will raise the standard of the legal profession, encourage and enhance the respect for the law, assure an effective and efficient administration of justice, assist in the keeping and maintenance of law and order in coordination with the other departments of government.

It also provides the basis for weeding out the unfit and misfits in the legal profession for the protection of the public".

Let me now share to you some of my case digest.

First Case:

Marcial Abiero, complainant v. Atty. Bernardo G. Juanino, respondent

A.C. No. 5302, February 18, 2005

Facts

Complainant Marcial Abrero engaged the services of respondent as counsel de parte in NLRC NCR OCW case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the complainant but the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the arbiter’s decision on appeal, dismissing the case for lack of merit. The respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review and paid the docket fee, but it was soon discovered by the complainant that the Petition for Review was never filed by the respondent and that the NLRC decision became final and executory. This prompted herein complainant to file this administrative case against respondent, charging the latter with negligence in connection with a legal matter entrusted to him.

In his Comment, Atty. Juanino explained, among others, that there was indeed error on his (respondent’s) oart when instead of filing a Petition for Cetiorari as originally intended, he chose to pursue another course of action which is the filing of a Motion for Execution to enforce the Labor Arbiter’s decision against the other respondents who did not appeal said decision. He, however, pleads good faith and that he tried his best to win the complainant’s labor. Still, herein complainant asserted that the respondent made several promises regarding the status of the Petition for Review but nothing came out of said promises.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines held that the respondent, due to his failure to file the petition for review, breached Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. It was held that there was no sufficient justification for respondent’s failure to file the petition for review with the Court of Appeals and the fact that se was seeking another legal remedy did not justify his failure to file the petition within the prescribed period. His failure to comply with his legal duty as counsel caused damage and prejudice to his client.

Issue

Whether or not respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, explaining that the failure to appeal to the Court of Appeals despite instructions by the client to do so constitutes negligence on the part of the counsel. The respondent did not serve his client with diligence and competence in that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his client, and for such inexcusable negligence, he is liable for violations of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, his failure to maintain an open line of communication with his client was also in direct contravention with Rule 18.04 of the Code, which requires a lawyer to keep his client informed of the status of his case and respond within reasonable time to the client’s request for information.