ASSIGNMENT OF ROBERTO S.

VALENZUELA, JD-1, ISU

SANTIAGO v FOJAS

A.C. No. 4103. September 7, 1995

DAVIDE, JR., J.

QUESTION:

Complainants, AAA et.al were high-ranking officials of Far Easter University Faculty Association
(FEUFA), allegedly expelled BBB from FEUFA. BBB then commenced with the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint to declare his illegal expulsion from the union. DOLE
directed the complainant union to reinstate BBB as union member with all the rights and privileges
thereto. BBB sought for damages and filed a civil case with the RTC. Atty. FFF, respondent and
counsel of AAA et. al., moved to dismiss the civil case filed by BBB against AAA for res judicata
and lack of jurisdiction because the illegal dismissal case was already decided by Med-Arbiter and it
is only cognizable by the DOLE.

RTC granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon BBB's motion for
reconsideration, however, it reconsidered the order of dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the
complainants herein to file their answer within a nonextendible period of fifteen days from notice.
Instead of filing an answer, the respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of
the case which were denied by RTC. The respondent filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition
for certiorari.

The respondent lawyer did not file the complainants’ answer and because of that the RTC declared
AAA in default, and BBB was authorized to present his evidence ex-parte and won damages and
attorney’s fees.

The complainants, still assisted by the respondent, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which,
however, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.

Is Atty. FFF committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to
file for the complainants an answer in civil case for which reason the latter were declared in
default and judgment was rendered against them on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, which
was received ex-parte?

ANSWER:

Yes.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence.

Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of
negligence. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success is eternal diligence to the
cause of the client (Edquibal v. Ferrer, A.C. No. 5687, February 3, 2005).

In the given case, Atty. FFF clearly violated Canon 18 by failing to file for the complainants an
answer in civil case for which reason the latter were declared in default and judgment was rendered
against them. Complainants alleged in their reply that the respondent lawyer’s failure to file an
answer was not an honest mistake but was "deliberate, malicious and calculated to place them on the
legal disadvantage, to their damage and prejudice" for, as admitted by respondent lawyer in his
motion to set aside the order of default, his failure to do so was "due to volume and pressure of legal
work."
Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

He is not excused by reasons of pressure and large volume of legal work. The negligence cannot be
excused by a “losing cause”. Even if it was a losing case, he should be honest to the client.

ATTY. FFF is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED

1. In the office set-up, the table of the lawyer where he conducts interview of clients is
situated about three (3) meters from the table of the law office secretary, is there
anything wrong in this?
Yes.
Confidentiality is the relation between lawyer and client or guardian and ward, or between spouses,
with regard to the trust that is placed in the one by the other (Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition
1990, 2004).

A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation
is terminated (Canon 21, CPR).

It is one of the duties of a lawyer, as provided for in the Rules of Court, to maintain inviolate the
confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client (Sec. 20(e), Rule 138,
RRC).

In the given case, the three-meter distance of the table of the lawyer where he conducts interview of
clients from the table of the law office secretary is very near to discuss confidential matter between
the lawyer and a client. The lawyer shall preserve the best interest of the client.

2. Submit case digest of Baens vs. Sempio, A.C. No. 10378, June 9, 2014.

Facts:

Baens engaged the services of Atty. Sempio to file a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
against his wife. Despite receipt of P250, 000 for legal expenses, Atty. Sempio failed to file the
petition, and it was Baens’ wife who filed the same. Atty. Sempio filed an Answer only after the 15-
day period stated in the Summons. Atty. Sempio also failed to make an objection on the petition on
the ground of improper venue as neither Baens nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmariñas,
Cavite. He never bothered to check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the
hearings set for the case. As a result, the civil case was decided without Baens being able to present
his evidence.

Issue:

Did Atty. Sempio violate the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 15 which
provides that “A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his clients”, by failing his duties and responsibilities as a counsel of the complainant ?

Held:

Yes. Atty. Sempio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 15 which
provides that “A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his clients”, by failing his duties and responsibilities as a counsel of the complainant

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients

The excuse proffered by Atty. Sempio that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial
court is highly intolerable. In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and case records
was within his control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. The preparation and the filing of the
answer is a matter of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of the
lawyer. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the
advancement of his client’s cause of action.

Records further disclose that he omitted to update himself of the progress of his client’s case with the
trial court, and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his client’s
interest. Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case
entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of law to support his
client’s interest. When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise
due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights.
In this case, the respondent’s reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process
and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients’ interests. A lawyer’s duty of competence and
diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice,
but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases
with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even without prodding from the client or the
court.(Baens v. Sempio, A.C. No. 10378, June 9, 2014).

Clearly, it cannot be doubted that the respondent violated Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of
the Code which states that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”

The Court hereby SUSPENDS Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio from the practice of law for SIX (6)
MONTHS

3. Submit case digest of Aldovino vs. Pujalte, A.C. No. 5082, February 17, 2004.

Facts:

Complainants alleged in their complaint that they are brothers and sisters and heirs of Arcadia
Nicodemus. They hired the services of respondent Atty. Pujalte, Jr. as their counsel in Civil Case
with the Regional Trial Court, of Lucena City. The suit was for specific performance with damages
to compel their sister, Loreto Nicodemus Pulumbarit, to deliver to them their shares in the estate of
their deceased mother.

The trial court rendered its decision in favor of the complainants and ordered Loreto Nicodemus
Pulumbarit to pay the said obligation for the former’s interests.

In the presence of defendant Mrs. Loreto N. Pulumbarit and respondent counsel, Branch Clerk of
Court Serdon divided the withdrawn amount into eight shares of P166,888.71 each. He gave the
defendant two shares.  Then he handed the remaining amount of P1,001,332.26, corresponding to six
shares, to respondent upon his representation that he is authorized to receive the money and to
oversee the distribution to complainants of their respective shares.

However, complainants did not receive their shares from respondent despite repeated demands.
Thus, they engaged the services of Atty. Francisco I. Chavez who, on December 17, 1998, sent a
letter to respondent demanding that the amount of P1,001,332.26 entrusted to him by the Branch
Clerk of the Court be turned over to complainants.

The respondent delivered to herein complainants was only P751, 332.26, instead of P1, 001, 332.26
because he deducted P250, 000. 00 therefrom.  He claimed that this amount is his attorney’s fees per
his agreement with Milagros Aldovino, complainants’ representative.   According to complainants,
the sum of P100, 000.00 (P86, 000.00 plus P14, 000. 00) is more than the amount of attorney’s fees
agreed upon by the parties.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer Pujalte violated Canon 16 of Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession.

Held:

Yes, respondent lawyer violated Canon 16 of Code of Professional Responsibility and 16.03.

Canon 16 of Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession and Rule 16.03 states that a
lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he
shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his
lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for
in the Rules of Court.
In the case at bar, respondent lawyer should have complied with the above provisions.  When
complainants demanded that the sum of P1, 001, 332.26 be delivered to them, he should have heeded
promptly.  Had they not hired a lawyer and charged him with estafa, he would not have turned over
the money to them. While it may be true that he has a lien over the funds he should have notified
complainants about it in due time.

Respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally as lawyer’s lien, the sum of P250,
000.00.  As found by IBP Commissioner, there was no agreement between him and complainants
that he could retain P250, 000.00 as attorney’s fees. In fact, he did not adduce any proof of such
agreement.  His mere allegation or claim is not proof. Obviously, his failure to return the money to
complainants upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it in violation of the
trust reposed on him. His act of holding on to their money without their acquiescence is conduct
indicative of lack of, integrity and propriety.

Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of
the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pedro C. Pujalte, Jr. is hereby declared guilty of violation of Canon
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year effective immediately.  He is ordered to return the sum of P236,000.00 to
complainants within five (5) days from notice.

4. Is the lawyer of a company the lawyer of the officers of the company?

The general rule is that no, the lawyer of the company shall serve only for the sake and benefits of
the company but when the officers of the company represent the interest of the company and they
acted not in their private capacity but rather based on the will and goal of the company the lawyer
shall render his service.

The officers of the company can utilized the service of the lawyer of the company if the concerned
activities and issues are having connection to the company.