Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
η A lawyer who accepts a legal matter from his client is understood that he will take all procedural steps necessary to prosecute the client’s claim or to defend the client’s rights in the action
Ordinary diligence required
η
The standard of diligence required of a lawyer is that of a good father of a family.He is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence
η
There is want of required diligence when a lawyer fails without sufficient justification to bring an action immediately, to answer a complaint within the reglementary period, to notify his client of the date of the date of hearing, to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference, to inform the client of an adverse judgment within the reglementary period to appeal, to take steps to have the adverse decision reconsidered or appealed, to ascertain the correct date of receipt of decision, to acquaint himself with what has happened to the litigation, to pay docket fee on appeal, to claim judicial notice sent to him by mail or to file the appellant’s briefη If lawyer cannot appear at the scheduled hearing, he should either request another lawyer to appear for him and see to it that he does so or ask for its postponement (without assuming that postponement will be granted)
η A lawyer who enters in midstream has duty to inquire status of the case
η A lawyer should see to it that his client attend the pre-trial conference. If client cannot appear, he should secure a written authority to compromise action and submit the case to arbitration
η A lawyer should not assume that motion for extension will be granted. He should always inquire with the clerk of court.
η If a lawyer failed to present motion for extension of time to file a pleading, motion, brief or memorandum, and within the
reglementary period, he should file the same accompanied with a motion for leave to admit it, stating therein the reasons for the delay.
η A lawyer who cannot continue representation should ask his client to be allowed to withdraw so that another counsel may be retained. When client refuses, or nowhere to be found, which will render performance of lawyer’s duties difficult or impossible, he should ask that he be discharged or apply or to the court to be released.
η Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the inability to exercise due diligence
What to do in case of conflict in trial dates η He should lose no time in asking for
postponement of the case or cases set later, as he should not give undue preference as against the other EXCEPT in favor of that case wherein the court has served warning, in view of the previous repeated postponements of trial
η The most ethical thing to do: inform the prospective client of all the facts so that the latter may retain another lawyer. If client still retains that lawyer, after full disclosure, he assumes the risk and cannot complain of the consequences if postponement is denied and finds himself without an attorney to represent him at the trial
Adoption of system to insure receipt of mails η A lawyer should maintain a system that will
insure his prompt receipt of notices and communications sent to him by registered mail at his address of record
η The following will not prevent service of registered mail from being effective after 5 days of notice by postmaster: lawyer could not afford to hire a regular clerk to claim mail; that his clerk failed to call his attention to it; the demands of his work required him to be in different places;
changed his address without notice to the court
Notice of change of address
η A lawyer must make of record his correct address in the case in which he appears for a suit or and to inform the court in writing of his change of address. Otherwise he will not be entitled to be served with judicial notice if address not on record.
η The effect of failure to notify the court of a change in address is that a notice served at the attorney’s original address is binding upon the client who will suffer the consequences.
η Note that if a client dies, the lawyer should inform court within 30 days, and request for the substitution of the decedent in the event that the claim survives death
Requiring clerk or court to do his duty
η If the clerk of court is negligent, he shall call the attention of the court to that fact or to file the necessary motion to set the case for pre-trial or trial so that the administration of justice will not suffer any delay
η While clerk of court may not do his duty, it does not discharge lawyer from the responsibility of seeing that the record on appeal and the evidence are elevated to the appellate court
η He may not sit idly by and wait until the clerk of court does his duty.
Duty to keep client fully informed
η A lawyer must advise his client promptly whenever he has any information to give which it is important that the client receive.
These include: withdrawal of appeal and all adverse consequences; mode or manner by which interest is defended of why certain steps are taken or omitted; when client should be present at the hearing of his case
η The client should also not sit idly by. He is bound to contact his counsel from time to time in order that he may be informed of the progress of his case.
Standard of duty required of defense counsel η A defense lawyer is required to render
effective legal assistance to the accused, irrespective of his personal opinion as to the guilt of his client (In a criminal case.
Remember that he can decline in a civil suit if suit is intended to harass or injure another)
η He should present by all fair and honorable means, every defense and mitigating circumstance that the law permits to the end that his client may not be deprived of life, liberty or property but by due process of law legally applied.
η In defense, a lawyer should not put on a witness stand whom he knows will give a false testimony. He should also not attribute to another person the crime with which his client is charged unless it can be inferred that another may have committed it.
η A lawyer may not cause the transfer, through misrepresentation of a case pending in one sala to another without the consent of the judge, and for the purpose of obtaining a more satisfactory remedy. He cannot likewise employ improper or dishonorable means to secure acquittal of an accused known to him to be guilty, nor abandon him or withdraw from the case even if he is convinced of his client’s guilt.
What is required of counsel de oficio
η Expected to render effective service and to exert his best efforts on behalf of an indigent accused.
η He ought not to be excused from his responsibility for any trivial reason.
Duty of defense counsel when accused intends to plead guilty
η When a client desires to enter a guilty plea, his counsel must fully acquaint himself with the records and surrounding circumstances of the case; confer with the accused and obtain from him his account of what had happened; advise him of his constitutional rights; thoroughly explain to him the import of a guilty plea and the inevitable conviction that will follow; see to it that prescribed procedure is strictly followed and disclosed in the court records.
η
professional writ runners and pleaders : lawyers who handle large volume of cases for less than spectacular fees by advising, influencing, cajoling or even coercing clients to plead guilty, irrespective of their guilt or innocenceη
guilt plea system puts the most reputable lawyer into a trying situation. It would be to the client’s advantage in view of the evidence of guilt and in view of the prosecution’s offer or willingness to charge him with a lesser offense if the accused will enter a plea of guilty.η The dilemma: if he were to advise his client to enter a plea, he may be less than true to his duty of extending the best legal assistance. If he were to counsel him to plead guilty, he may be confronted with the problem of division of responsibility as to the correctness of the step taken. Solution:
none really. These problems just underscore the need for a defense counsel to be conscientious and diligent in the discharge of his duties to an accused who desires to enter a guilty plea as the best insurance for a clear conscience
Dalisay v. Mauricio (2005)
F: Valeriana Dalisay was impressed with Atty. Melanio “Batas” Mauricio Jr.’s pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy, and engaged his services for a civil case where she is the defendant. She handed him all pertinent documents, and paid him a total of P56, 000.
Notwithstanding her payments, Mauricio never rendered any legal service regarding the civil case. Dalisay then terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of the amounts and documents. Mauricio refused.
The SC required Mauricio to refund the P56,000 and suspended him for six months.
H: When Mauricio accepted the P56, 000 from Dalisay, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter’s case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of
him to serve Dalisay with competence and attend to her case with fidelity, care and devotion. He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services. There was also no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that Mauricio filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case. It is clear that Mauricio did not take any step to assist Dalisay in her case, charging P56, 000 is improper. While giving legal advice and opinion on Dalisay’s problems and those of her family constitutes legal services, however, the attorney’s fees must be reasonable. Obviously, P56, 000 is exorbitant.
When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the client’s rights.
Endaya v. Oca (2003)
F: The spouses Endaya were sued for unlawful detainer. Atty.Wilfredo Oca of the Public Attorney’s Office was assigned to handle their case. He failed to submit affidavits and position papers required by the MTC.
Fortunately for the spouses, the case was dismissed because the MTC held that the plaintiffs in that case were not real-parties-in-interest. On appeal to the RTC, the parties were required to submit memoranda. Oca again failed to submit the documents. The RTC reversed the MTC decision and the Endayas were ordered to vacate the land and pay their debts in arrears. Endaya received the decision and confronted Oca who denied having received the decision. This later proved to be false. The SC suspended Oca for two months.
H: Oca’s transgressions show his seeming stubborn mindset against the acts required of him by the courts. This intransigent attitude not only belies lack of diligence and commitment but evinces absence of respect for the authority of the SC and other courts involved. In not filing the appeal memorandum, Oca denied the Endayas the chance of putting up a fair fight in the dispute. He should have left it to the sound judgment of the court to determine whether affidavits support his clients, and not refuse to file these altogether.
Notwithstanding his belief that without the supporting documents a pleading would be futile, he should have formally and promptly manifested his intent not to file the pleadings to prevent delay. Also, he tried to evade responsibility for his negligence when Endaya confronted him upon receipt of the adverse decision. Oca was untruthful and effectively betrayed the trust placed in him by the client.
Oca’s explanations have undertones of dishonesty, especially in being the counsel only for one incident. Though he asked to be relieved, this could not mean that less was expected of him. Once a lawyer takes the case, he owes it to the client to see the case to the end. Also, a lawyer continues to be counsel until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated either by the act of his client or his own act,
with permission of the court. Until such time, the lawyer is expected to do his best for the interest of his client.
Rentoy v. Ibadlit (1998)
F: Atty. Ibadlit was the lawyer of Reontoy.
RTC decided the case against his client. Atty.
Ibadlit alleges that he told Reontoy’s brother to inform her that they had lost the case and that appeal was futile. Confident that the brother had conveyed the message and having failed to receive any advice from Reontoy, Atty. Ibadlit did not file an appeal. He was later informed that she wanted to appeal thus he filed a notice of appeal, which was denied for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.
H: A lawyer has no authority to waive his client’s right to appeal and constitutes a negligence and malpractice as proscribed in 18.03.
Mariveles v. Mallari (1993)
Atty. Mallari represented Mariveles in a BP 22 case, which he lost in the RTC of Davao.
Despite numerous extension (totaling 245 days) granted by the CA, Mallari failed to appeal.
Hence the decision became final. The SC, however, granted Mariveles appeal, admitting the brief filed by new counsel stating: “Where the negligence of counsel is so great that the rights of the accused are prejudiced and he is prevented from presenting his defense, especially where the appellant raises issues which place in serious doubt the correctness of the trial court’s judgment of conviction, the aforesaid rule [regarding dismissal of appeals]
must not be rigidly applied to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”
Legarda v. CA (1992)
F: Legarda was defendant in a complaint for specific performance. Atty. Coronel, her counsel, failed to file an answer within the period and Legarda was thus declared in default. The lower court rendered a decision against Legarda. Coronel failed to pose an appeal within the period. Thus, the decision became final. The SC suspended Atty. Coronel for six months.
H: Coronel is guilty of gross negligence for violating Canon 18 and rule 18.03 particularly.
By neglecting to file the answer to the complaint against petitioner, he set off the events which resulted in the deprivation of petitioner’s rights over her house and lot. “It should be remembered that the moment the lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise due diligence or abandons his client’s cause makes him unworthy of the trust reposed on him by the latter.”
RULE 18.04