Dismal performance

It is not enough that a law practitioner is qualified to handle a legal case; he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work. It is his duty to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his client. Otherwise he may be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility like in this case of Atty. P.

Atty. P was hired as the lawyer of Medy and his son Ted in the case filed by Lenny against them. The records show that despite the notice and order sent to him to submit a pre-trial brief three days before the pre-trial hearing on December 18, 2000 and to appear on said date of pre-trial, he failed to do so. Thus Medy and Ted were declared in default and decision was rendered against them after presentation of evidence ex parte by Lenny.

And when Atty. P appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals, the appeal was dismissed in 2002 because he did not file any appeal brief. The worst part here was that Medy and Ted found out about said dismissal only in 2005 when they went to him to follow up the case after running out of patience in waiting for the CA decision.

When Medy and Ted filed an administrative complaint against Atty. P for violation of the lawyer’s oath and neglect of duty, Atty. P cited as reason for the non-filing of the brief the fact that before the pre-trial, Medy and Ted already informed him that they had already entered into an amicable settlement so he just advised them to submit the same to the court in lieu of the Pre-Trial brief. He also said that he did not appear during the pre-trial hearing because he chose instead to attend the pre-trial conference of another case involving his personal vehicle set on the same date. With respect to his failure to file the brief, Atty. P pointed to his secretary’s oversight in not promptly informing him of the receipt of the Notice of submission of the same.

So, Atty. P alleged that he honestly believed he did not violate his lawyer’s oath nor was he negligent in handling the case of Medy and Ted. He claimed that these were due to circumstances beyond his control and were unavoidable.

But the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) nevertheless found Atty. P guilty of gross violation of his duties as a lawyer and of inexcusable negligence and thus recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. Was the IBP correct?

Yes. Atty. P’s documented acts and omissions fall extremely short of the standard of professional duty that all lawyers are required to faithfully adhere to. There is no doubt that he was woefully remiss in his duty to display utmost diligence and competence in protecting the interests of his clients. Even if his justification for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference is given credence, this does not excuse him from failing to file the pre-trial brief at least three days before the pre-trial as required by the Rules. His excuse that he did not file the brief anymore because of the Amicable Settlement between the parties is untenable. Any lawyer worth his salt would readily know that once a case has been filed in court, any amicable settlement between the parties must be approved by the court in order to be legally binding. Thus he cannot assume that the case will be deemed close by virtue of the supposed amicable settlement so as to excuse him from filing the Pre-Trial Brief and from appearing at the pre-trial set by the court.

Merely placing the blame on the incompetence of his secretary is not a plausible explanation for his failure to file the brief in the CA. This mistake is even exacerbated by the fact that he did not inform his clients of the dismissal of their appeal in 2002 and it was only in 2005 that his clients learned about this unfortunate turn of events. The facts of this case illustrate Atty. P’s dismal performance of his responsibility to diligently protect the interests of his clients to the best of his ability within the bounds of the law (Talento vs. Paneda, A.C. 7432, December 23, 2009. 609 SCRA 1). 

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]