Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
The failure to exercise due diligence and the abandonment of a client’s cause make such a lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed on him [Cantilller v. Potenciano, A.C. No. 3195 (1989)]
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, no fear or judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty [Santiago v. Fojas, A.M. No. 4103 (1995)]
By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, the lawyer deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and
confidence reposed in him by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him into parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional [Stemmerik v. Mas, A.C. No. 8010 (2009)] E.5. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
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.
DILIGENCE REQUIRED
A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, as any other member of the bar similarly situated commonly possesses and exercises. He is not, however, bound to exercise extraordinary diligence [Pajarillo v. WCC, G.R. No. L-42927 (1980)]
A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense [Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5309 (2005)]
i. Adequate Preparation
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation. A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and interests by thorough study and preparation, mastering applicable law and facts involved in a case, and keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the law [Agpalo (2004)]
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so many cases he can handle. [Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)]
ii. Negligence
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has been caused to his client, the latter has a cause of action against him for damages. [Callanta]
General rule: A client is bound by the attorney’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case or in management of litigation and in procedural technique, and he cannot be heard to complain that result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently.
Exceptions: He is not so bound where the ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of lawyer is so great and error so serious that the client, who has good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in court [People v.
Manzanilla, G.R. No. L-17436 (1922); Alarcon v. CA, G.R. No. 126802 (2000)]
EXAMPLES OF LAWYER’S
NEGLIGENCE:
1) Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to answer a complaint resulting in a default judgment against his client
(Mapua v. Mendoza, G.R. L-19295
(1923)];
2) Failure to bring suit immediately, as when it was filed when the defendant had already become insolvent and recovery could no longer be had;
3) Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post office of notice of decision resulting in the non-perfection of the appellant’s appeal [Joven-De Jesus v. PNB, G.R. No. L-19299 (1964)]
4) Failure to file briefs within the reglementary period [People v. Cawili, G.R. No. L-30543, (1970)];
5) Failure to attend a trial without filing a motion for postponement or without requesting either of his two partners in the law office to take his place and appear for the defendants [Gaerlan v.
Bernal, G.R. No. L-4039 (1952)];
6) Failure to appear at pre-trial [Agravante
v. Patriarca, G.R. No. L-48324 (1990)];
7) Failure of counsel to notify clients of the scheduled trial which prevented the
latter to look for another lawyer to represent them while counsel was in the hospital [Ventura v. Santos, 59 Phil. 123 (1993)];
8) Failure to appear simply because the client did not go to counsel’s office on the date of the trial as was agreed upon
(Alcoriza v. Lumakang, A.M. No. 249
(1978)];
9) Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after receiving the amount for the purpose [Capulong v. Alino, A.M. No. 381 (1968)]
iii. Collaborating Counsel
WHEN A LAWYER ACCEPTS A CASE, WHETHER FOR A FEE OR NOT, HIS
ACCEPTANCE IS AN IMPLIED
REPRESENTATION:
1) That he possesses the requisite degree of academic learning, skill and ability necessary in the practice of his profession;
2) That he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
3) That he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary thereof [Uy v. Tansinsin, A.C. 8252 (2009)]; and
4) That he will take steps as will adequately safeguard his client’s interests [Islas v.
Platon, G.R. No. L-23183 (1924)]
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not
undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
A lawyer should not accept an undertaking in a specific area of law which he knows or should know he is not qualified to enter. [Agpalo (2004)]
iv. Duty to Apprise Client
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to client’s request for information.
It was unnecessary to have the clients wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to cooperate, the lawyer should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. [Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C. No. 492 (1967)]
CLIENT SHOULD MAKE PROPER
INQUIRIES
The client should not, however, sit idly by. It is also his duty to make proper inquiries from his counsel concerning his case, in keeping with that standard of care which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his important business.
E.6. REPRESENTATION WITH ZEAL WITHIN