I Case no.

1
Rex Polinar Dagohoy vs. Atty. Artemio V. San Juan
A.C. No. 7944, June 03, 2013

Facts:

Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross negligence, in

connection with the dismissal of his client’s appeal filed before the CA.
Tomas Dagohoy, his client and the father of complainant Rex Polinar
Dagohoy, was charged with and convicted of theft before RTC. According
to the complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for Atty. San Juan’s failure
to file the appellant’s brief. He further alleged that Atty. San Juan did not file
a motion for reconsideration against the CA’s order of dismissal.The
complainant also accused Atty. San Juan of being untruthful in dealing with
him and Tomas. The complainant, in this regard, alleged that Atty. San
Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real status of Tomas’ appeal
and did not disclose to them the real reason for its dismissal.
Atty. San Juan denied the charge. He imputed fault on Tomas for
failing to furnish him a copy of the case records to enable him to prepare
and file the appellant’s brief. He claimed that he tried to save the situation
but a rich niece of Tomas dismissed him and prevented him from further
acting on the case.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. San Juan violated the code of profession under
Canon 18?
Held:
Yes, Court affirms the recommendation of IBP that Atty. San Juan
recommended for penalty of 3 months suspension from the practice of law
for. first, the negligence in handling his client’s appeal; second, his failure to
act candidly and effectively in communicating information to his client; and
more importantly, third, the serious and irreparable consequence of his
admitted negligence which deprived his client of legal remedies in
addressing his conviction.
In this case, Atty. San Juan’s negligence in handling his client’s
appeal was duly established by the records and by his own admission. We
cannot accept as an excuse the alleged lapse committed by his client in
failing to provide him a copy of the case records.
Second, Atty. San Juan, unlike his client, knows or should have
known, that filing an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period is
critical in the perfection of an appeal. The preparation and the filing of the
appellant’s brief are matters of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive
control and responsibility of Atty. San Juan. It was incumbent upon him to
execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the perfection
of his client’s appeal.

[Type text] [Type text] MICHELE ANN R. SAMSON

 Third, the records also disclose Atty. San Juan’s lack of candor in
dealing with his client. He omitted to inform Tomas of the progress of his
appeal with the CA. Worse, he did not disclose to Tomas the real reason
for the CA’s dismissal of the appeal. Neither did Atty. San Juan file a
motion for reconsideration to address the CA’s order of dismissal, or
otherwise resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his
client’s interest.
II. Case No. 2
Adelita B. Llunar vs. Atty. Romulo Ricafort
A.C. No. 6484, June 16, 2015

Facts:
As attorney-in-fact of Severina Bañez, hired Atty Ricafort to file a
case against father and son Ricardo and Ard Cervantes (Ard) for the
recovery of a parcel of land allegedly owned by the Bañez family but was
fraudulently registered under the name of Ricardo and later was transferred
to Ard. The property, was the subject of foreclosure proceedings at the time
the respondent was hired. The respondent received from the complainant
the following amounts: (a) ₱70,000.00 as partial payment of the redemption
price of the property; (b) ₱19,000.00 to cover the filing fees; and (c)
₱6,500.00 as attorney's fees.
Three years later, the complainant learned that no case involving the
subject property was ever filed by the respondent with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Legaspi City. Thus, the complainant demanded that the
respondent return to her the amount of ₱95,000.00.
The respondent refused to return the whole amount to the
complainant He argued that a complaint2 for annulment of title against Ard
Cervantes had actually been filed in court, though not by him, but by
another lawyer, Atty. Edgar M. Abitria. Thus, he was willing to return only
what was left of the ₱95,000.00 after deducting therefrom the ₱50,000.00
that he paid to Atty. Abitria as acceptance fee for handling the case.
The complainant refused to recognize the complaint for annulment of
title filed by Atty. Abitria and claimed that she had no knowledge of Atty.
Abitria's engagement as counsel. Besides, the complaint was filed three (3)
years late and the property could no longer be redeemed from the bank.
Also, the complainant discovered that the respondent had been suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ricafort violated the code of profession under Canon
18?
Held:
Court find the respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings
with his client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite
suspension, and thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of
DISBARMENT.

[Type text] [Type text] MICHELE ANN R. SAMSON

 Under the Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
In this case the respondent therefore violated the Code of Profession did
not exert due diligence in handling the complainant's case. He failed to act
promptly in redeeming the complainant's property within the period of
redemption. What is worse is the delay of three years before a complaint to
recover the property was actually filed in court. The respondent clearly dilly-
dallied on the complainant's case and wasted precious time and
opportunity that were then readily available to recover the complainant's
property.

III. ANALYSIS
In the first case, the case of Atty. Artemio V. San Juan, the court
resolve the case by only imposing suspension upon the defendant for the
negligence in handling his client’s appeal; his failure to act candidly and
effectively in communicating information to his client; and more importantly,
the serious and irreparable consequence of his admitted negligence which
deprived his client of legal remedies in addressing his conviction.
Atty. San Juan’s negligence undoubtedly violates the Lawyer’s Oath
that requires him to "conduct as a lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
his clients" He also violated Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provide:
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request
for information.

"It is a fundamental rule of ethics that ‘an attorney who undertakes to

conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.’ It was
Atty. San Juan’s bounden duty to see his cases through until proper
completion; he could not abandon or neglect them in midstream, in the way
he did with the complainant’s case.
In view of the foregoing circumstance, court resolve by suspenion
from the practice of law Atty. Artemio V. San Juan for violating his
Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, with a WARNING that the commission of the
same or similar act or acts shall be dealt with more severely;
The relationship between an attorney and his client is one infuse with
utmost trust and confidence. In this case, clients are led to expect that
lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the
required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to

[Type text] [Type text] MICHELE ANN R. SAMSON

devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Canon 17, and
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code embody these essential
directives
Under the case decided by the Supreme Court. conversely, a
lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action.
While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation,
the Court has consistently held that the lawyer’s mere failure to perform the
obligations due his client is per se a violation.
In the case of Atty. Romulo Ricafort, The court find the respondent
guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his client and in engaging in
the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and thus impose
upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT.
Under the Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
In this case the respondent therefore violated the Code of Profession did
not exert due diligence in handling the complainant's case. He failed to act
promptly in redeeming the complainant's property within the period of
redemption. What is worse is the delay of three years before a complaint to
recover the property was actually filed in court. The respondent clearly dilly-
dallied on the complainant's case and wasted precious time and
opportunity that were then readily available to recover the complainant's
property. Furthermore, the respondent failed to return, upon demand, the
amounts given to him by the complainant for handling the latter's case. On
three separate occasions, the respondent received from the complainant
the amounts of ₱19,000.00, ₱70,000.00, and ₱6,500.00 for purposes of
redeeming the mortgaged property from the bank and filing the necessary
civil cases against Cervantes.
In every case lawyer accepts deserve his full attention, skill and
competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
fee.
A lawyer who receive money to handle a client’s case but rendered
no service at all shall be subject to disciplinary measure (Daclisay v.
Mauricio) the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to
the clients is considered per se violation. The circumstance that the client
was also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for his
negligence in handling case (Solidon v. Macalalad).

[Type text] [Type text] MICHELE ANN R. SAMSON