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.

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.