Adarne vs. Aldaba, A.C. No. 801, 27 June 1978

CASE NO.
: 136
CASE TITLE: A.C. No. 801 (June 27, 1987)
CESARIO ADARNE, complainant
vs.
ATTY. DAMIAN V. ALDABA, respondent
CANON: 15
Facts:
 Brief Background:
In 1958, Raymunda Cumpio and her husband, Rufo Cumpio, filed an

action for forcible entry against herein complainant Cesario Adarne. Complainant
was first represented by Atty. Isauro Marmita (1st lawyer) who raised the issue of
ownership of the land in question which was dismissed by the Justice of the
Peace for lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court
of First Instance (CFI) Leyte, it was remanded to the lower court for trial on the
merits. It was again dismissed.
The plaintiffs again appealed to CFI Leyte. This time, complainant was
represented by Attys. Arturo Mirales and Generoso Casimpan (2nd and 3rd
lawyer). At the hearing of the case on Aug 7, 1961, the said lawyers were absent
so complainant asked his 3rd degree cousin, Atty. Damian Aldaba who was then
present in court to attend the trial of an electoral case, to appear as counsel for
them and ask for the Postponement of the trial. Respondent agreed and entered
a special appearance. Upon noticing that the plaintiffs and their counsel were
not also present in court, the respondent, instead of asking for a postponement,
moved for the dismissal of the case. Motion was granted and the case was
dismissed. The plaintiff filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order, to
which the respondent filed an opposition in behalf of the defendants, and the
motion was denied.
Plaintiffs appealed to CA where the said court remanded the case to CFI
Leyte. Again, complainant asked Atty. Aldaba to enter a “special appearance”.
They asked if they could be allowed to file action for quieting of title. However,
during the hearing in June 17, 1965, complainant failed to appear and plaintiffs
presented evidence. CFI Leyte rendered decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
Because of this, Cesario Adarne filed the present complaint against the
respondent Atty. Damian V. Aldaba.
 Complaint against the Lawyer:

Administrative action against the respondent attorney for gross negligence and
misconduct, for failure to give his entire devotion to the interest of his client,
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and exertion of his
utmost learning and ability in the prosecution and defense of his client, and for
not taking steps to protect the interests of his client in the face of an adverse
decision.
 IBP decision:
The judgment by default rendered against the complainant cannot be attributed

to the respondent attorney. The blame lies with the complainant for having
engaged the services of several lawyers to handle his case without formally
withdrawing the authority he had given to them to appear in his behalf as to place
the responsibility upon the respondent. To add to the confusion, the complainant
had also requested the clerk of court of the Court of First Instance of Leyte that
he (complainant) be furnished with summons and subpoena accorded to him. He
also filed a motion by himself, thus implying that he was handling his case
personally.
 Canons allegedly violated:

o 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.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Adalba should be disbarred or gross negligence and
misconduct?
Ruling:
No. An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a reasonable
degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes
to do. Prone to err like any other human being, he is not answerable for every error or
mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the best
of his skill and knowledge.
It appears that there have been three changes made of the attorneys for the
complainant in the forcible entry case. The complainant was originally represented by
Atty. Isauro Marmita who, upon his appointment to the Department of Labor, engaged
Atty. de Veyra to take his place. Then came Atty. Arturo Mirales and later, Atty.
Generoso Casimpan. However, no formalities whatever were observed in those
changes such that the respondent entered a "special appearance" for the complainant
in order that he could ask for the dismissal of the case for the failure of the adverse
party to prosecute. The rule followed on matters of substitution of attorneys as laid down
by this Court is that no substitution of attorneys will be allowed unless there be filed:
(1) a written application for such substitution;
(2) the written consent of the client;
(3) the written consent of the attorney substituted; and
(4) in case such written consent can not be secured, there must be filed with the
application proof of service of notice of such motion upon the attorney to be substituted,
in the manner prescribed by the rules.
Unless the foregoing formalities are complied with, substitution will not be permitted,
and the attorney who properly appeared last in the cause, before such application for
substitution, will be regarded as the attorney of record and will be held responsible for
the proper conduct of the cause.
It is well settled that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the
respondent attorney must be established by convincing proof. In the instant case, there
is no sufficient proof to warrant the disbarment of the respondent attorney. Neither is
there culpable malpractice to justify his suspension.Finding no convincing proof to
warrant the disbarment of respondent attorney, the administrative complaint filed
against him was dismissed.
Punishment:
None – Case Dismissed – Petitioner was in default.
Synthesis:
In Adarne vs. Aldaba, an administrative action against the respondent attorney was
filed by petitioner for gross negligence and misconduct for failure to appeal for the set
hearing on June 17, 1965, such acts of respondent led him to lose in the civil case. Atty.
Aldaba denied they have an agreement with complainant to handle the case except for
“special appearance”. SC ruled in favor of respondent, stating that an attorney is not
bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and
skill. Prone to err like any other human being, he is not answerable for every error or
mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith. Petitioner,
in this case was clearly in default, for having engaged the services of several lawyers to
handle his case without formally withdrawing the authority he had given to them to
appear in his behalf as to place the responsibility upon the respondent. To add to the
confusion, the complainant had also requested the clerk of court that he be furnished
with summons and subpoena, thus implying that he was handling his case personally.
Finding no convincing proof to warrant the disbarment of respondent, the administrative
complaint was dismissed.

Adarne vs. Aldaba, A.C. No. 801, 27 June 1978

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adarne vs. Aldaba, A.C. No. 801, 27 June 1978

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adarne vs. Aldaba, A.C. No. 801, 27 June 1978

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO.

In 1958, Raymunda Cumpio and her husband, Rufo Cumpio, filed an

 Complaint against the Lawyer:

The judgment by default rendered against the complainant cannot be attributed

 Canons allegedly violated:

(1) a written application for such substitution;

(2) the written consent of the client;

(3) the written consent of the attorney substituted; and

You might also like