3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santiago vs. Fojas
*
Adm. Case No. 4103. September 7, 1995.

VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR.

SOCORRO F. MANAS, and TRINIDAD NORDISTA,
complainants, vs. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act

either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his
client but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.—It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act
either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his
client. He has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon
14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the
cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

69

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 69

Santiago vs. Fojas

confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and
diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care,
and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and
the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may
expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.
Same; Same; If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the
entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not
only to practice law but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.—If
much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but
also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his
duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession.
Same; Same; 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.—Pressure and large volume of legal work
provide no excuse for the respondent’s inability to exercise due diligence in
the performance of his duty to file an answer. 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.
Same; Same; A lawyer’s negligence in not filing an answer on time is
not excused by his claim that the case was in fact a “losing cause,” for if
indeed he was so convinced of the futility of any defense therein, he should
have seasonably informed his clients thereof.—The respondent’s negligence
is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a
“losing cause” for the complainants since the claims therein for damages
were based on the final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the
complainants’ act of expelling Salvador from the union to be illegal. This
claim is a mere afterthought which hardly persuades us. If indeed the
respondent was so convinced of the futility of any defense therein, he should
have seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15
of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer,
when advising his client, shall give a candid

70

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santiago vs. Fojas

and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case,
neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Same; Same; For the inexcusable negligence of a lawyer in failing to
file an answer for his clients, he is reprimanded.—We do not therefore
hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free from any blame for the sad
fate of the complainants. He is liable for inexcusable negligence.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more careful in the performance of

his duty to his clients.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Amado R. Fojas for and in his own behalf.

DAVIDE, JR., J. :

In their letter of 8 September 1993, the complainants, former clients

of the respondent, pray that the latter be disbarred for “malpractice,
neglect and other offenses which may be discovered during the
actual investigation of this complaint.” They attached thereto an
Affidavit of Merit wherein they specifically allege:

1. That we are Defendants-Appellates [sic] in the Court of

Appeals Case No. CA-G.N. CV No. 38153 of which to our
surprise lost unnecessarily the aforesaid Petition [sic]. A
close perusal of the case reveals the serious misconduct of
our attorney on record, Atty. Amado Fojas tantamount to
malpractice and negligence in the performance of his duty
obligation to us, to defend us in the aforesaid case. That the
said attorney without informing us the reason why and
riding high on the trust and confidence we repose on him
either abandoned, failed to act accordingly, or seriously
neglected to answer the civil complaint against us in the
sala of Judge Teresita Capulong Case No. 3526-V-91 Val.
Metro Manila so that we were deduced [sic] in default.
2. That under false pretenses Atty. Fojas assured us that
everything was in order. That he had already answered the
complaint so that in spite of the incessant demand for him
to give us a copy he continued to deny same to us. Only to
disclose later that he never answered it after all because
according to him he was a very busy man. Please refer to
Court of Appeals decision dated August 17, 1993.

71

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 71

Santiago vs. Fojas

3. That because of Atty. Amado Fojas’ neglect and

malpractice of law we lost the Judge Capulong case and our
appeal to the Court of Appeals. So that it is only proper that
Atty. Fojas be disciplined and disbarred in the practice of
his profession.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

In his Comment, the respondent admits his “mistake” in failing to

file the complainants’ answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91, but he
alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for
reconsideration, which was unfortunately denied by the court. He
asserts that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was a “losing cause” for the
complainants because it was based on the expulsion of the plaintiff
therein from the Far Eastern University Faculty Association
(FEUFA) which was declared unlawful in the final decision in NCR-
OD-M-90-10-050. Thus, “[t]he unfavorable judgment in the
Regional Trial Court is not imputable to [his] mistake but rather
imputable to the merits of the case, i.e. , the decision in the
Expulsion case wherein defendants (complainants herein) illegally
removed from the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino
Salvador. . . .” He further claims that the complainants filed this case
to harass him because he refused to share his attorney’s fees in the
main labor case he had handled for them. The respondent then prays
for the dismissal of this complaint for utter lack of merit, since his
failure to file the answer was cured and, even granting for the sake
of argument that such failure amounted to negligence, it cannot
warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of the law
profession.
The complainants filed a Reply to the respondent’s Comment.
Issues having been joined, we required the parties to inform us
whether they were willing to submit this case for decision on the
basis of the pleadings they have filed. In their separate compliance,
both manifested in the affirmative.
The facts in this case are not disputed.
Complainants Veronica Santiago, Benjamin Hontiveros, Ma.
Socorro Manas, and Trinidad Nordista were the President, Vice-
President, Treasurer, and Auditor, respectively, of the FEUFA. They
allegedly expelled from the union Paulino Salvador. The latter then
commenced with the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) a complaint (NCR-OD-M-90-10-050) to declare illegal his
expulsion from the union.

72

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santiago vs. Fojas

In his resolution of 22 November 1990, Med-Arbiter Tomas

Falconitin declared illegal Salvador’s expulsion and directed the
union and all its officers to reinstate Salvador’s name in the roll of
union members with all the rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.
This resolution was affirmed in toto by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment.
Subsequently, Paulino Salvador filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, a complaint
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

against the complainants herein for actual, moral, and exemplary

damages and attorney’s fees, under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the
Civil Code. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.
As the complainant’s counsel, the respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the said case on grounds of (1) res judicata by virtue of the
final decision of the Med-Arbiter in NCR-OD-M-90-10-050 and (2)
lack of jurisdiction, since what was involved was an intra-union
issue cognizable by the DOLE. Later, he filed a supplemental
motion to dismiss.
The trial court, per Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, granted the
motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon Salvador’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 filed a motion for
reconsideration and dismissal of the case. This motion having been
denied, the respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari,
which was later referred to the Court of Appeals and docketed
therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 25834.
Although that petition and his subsequent motion for
reconsideration were both denied, the respondent still did not file the
complainants’ answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. Hence, upon
plaintiff Salvador’s motion, the complainants were declared in
default, and Salvador was authorized to present his evidence ex-
parte.
The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of
default and to stop the ex-parte reception of evidence before the
Clerk of Court, but to no avail.
Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the
complainants herein to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff Salva-

73

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 73

Santiago vs. Fojas

dor the amounts of P200,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as

exemplary damages or corrective damages; and P65,000.00 as
attorney’s fees; plus cost of suit.
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.
The respondent asserts that he was about to appeal the said
decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the
complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally
terminated by complainant Veronica Santiago.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

The core issue that presents itself is whether the respondent

committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case
No. 3526-V-91 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.
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may1 wish to become his client. He
has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take
up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and2
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in 3him.
He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
champion4 the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of
the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken5 or withheld from his client, save by the rules of
law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to
the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized
by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert

_______________

1 Canon 31, Canons of Professional Ethics.

2 Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.
3 Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.
4 Vda. de Alisbo vs. Jalandoon, 199 SCRA 321 [1991].
5 Canon 15, Canons of Professional Ethics.

74

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santiago vs. Fojas
6
every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an
attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries
with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the
court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty
with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client;
he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and7 helps
maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
The respondent admits that it was his duty to file an answer in
Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. He justifies his failure to do so in this
wise:
8
[I]n his overzealousness to question the Denial Order of the trial court, [he]
instead, thru honest mistake and excusable neglect, filed a PETITION FOR

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

CERTIORARI with the Honorable Court, docketed as G.R. No. 100983. . . .

And, when the Court of Appeals, to which G.R. No. 100983 was
referred, dismissed the petition, he again “inadvertently” failed to
file an answer “[d]ue to honest mistake and because of his
overzealousness as stated earlier. . . .”
In their Reply, the complainants allege that his 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 him in his motion to set
aside the order of default, his9 failure to do so was “due to volume
and pressure of legal work.” In short, the complainants want to
impress upon this Court that the respondent has given inconsistent
reasons to justify his failure to file an answer.
We agree with the complainants. In his motion for
reconsideration of the default order, the respondent explained his
non-

_______________

6 Id.
7 Francisco vs. Bosa, 205 SCRA 722 [1992].
8 Order denying the motion to reconsider the order which set aside the previous
order dismissing the case, reinstated the complaint, and required the complainants to
answer the complaint.
9 Appellant’s Brief (CA-G.R. No. CV-38153), 3; Annex “12” of the Respondent’s
Comment.

75

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 75

Santiago vs. Fojas

filing of the required answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness

occasioned by a large volume and pressure of legal work, while in
his Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and
excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial
order of the trial court.
Certainly, “overzealousness” on the one hand and “volume and
pressure of legal work” on the other are two distinct and separate
causes or grounds. The first presupposes the respondent’s full and
continuing awareness of his duty to file an answer which,
nevertheless, he subordinated to his conviction that the trial court
had committed a reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in
issuing an order reconsidering its previous order of dismissal of
Salvador’s complaint and in denying the motion to reconsider the
said order. The second ground is purely based on forgetfulness
because of his other commitments.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

Whether it be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that
the respondent did not comply with his duty to file an answer in
Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. His lack of diligence was compounded
by his erroneous belief that the trial court committed such error or
grave abuse of discretion and by his continued refusal to file an
answer even after he received the Court of Appeals’ decision in the
certiorari case. There is no showing whatsoever that he further
assailed the said decision before this Court in a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to prove his claim of
overzealousness to challenge the trial court’s order. Neither was it
shown that he alleged in his motion to lift the10 order of default that
the complainants had a meritorious defense. And, in his appeal
from the judgment by default, he did not even raise as one of the
errors of the trial court either the impropriety of the order of default
or the court’s grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to lift
that order.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for
the respondent’s inability to exercise due diligence in the
performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence,

_______________

10 Section 3, Rule 18, Rules of Court. See Circle Financial Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals, 196 SCRA 166 [1991]; Golden Country Farms, Inc. vs. Sanwar
Development Corp., 214 SCRA 295 [1992].

76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santiago vs. Fojas

regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for

free.
All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires him to serve his
clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and, more
specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: “A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.”
The respondent’s negligence is not excused by his claim that
Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a “losing cause” for the
complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on the
final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants’ act of
expelling Salvador from the union to be illegal. This claim is a mere
afterthought which hardly persuades us. If indeed the respondent
was so convinced of the futility of any defense therein, he should
have seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly

provides:

A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion
on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating
nor understating the prospects of the case.

Then too, if he were unconvinced of any defense, we are unable to

understand why he took all the trouble of filing a motion to dismiss
on the grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction and of
questioning the adverse ruling thereon initially with this Court and
then with the Court of Appeals, unless, of course, he meant all of
these to simply delay the disposition of the civil case. Finally, the
complainants were not entirely without any valid or justifiable
defense. They could prove that the plaintiff was not entitled to all the
damages sought by him or that if he were so, they could ask for a
reduction of the amounts thereof.
We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free
from any blame for the sad fate of the complainants. He is liable for
inexcusable negligence.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby
REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more
careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.

77

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 77

People vs. Pacapac

SO ORDERED.

Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Kapunan and Hermosisima,

Jr., JJ., concur.

Respondent reprimanded and admonished.

Notes.—The practice of lawyers of sending messengers to ask

for postponement should not be tolerated. (People vs. Tibayan, 85
SCRA 378 [1978])
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins every
lawyer to “conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
against opposing counsel.” (Yu vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 594
[1994])

——o0o——

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d8724dd3d2bc78ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10