Carandang v. Atty.

Obmina
Facts
Carandang brought suit for failure of Atty. Obmina, his counsel, to inform him of the
adverse decision in his case, of the issuance of the writ of execution, and for failure to
appeal the decision.
Carandang learned about the promulgation of the decision through a chance visit to the
trial court, 6 months after it was rendered. After asking Obmina why it happened that
way, Obmina told him that they cannot take action since Carandang cannot pay for services
of counsel, much less pay for the appeal fee.
Issue
W/N Atty. Obmina violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR? Yes.
Held
No evidence on record that Atty. Obmina took the initiative to notify Carandang of trial
courts adverse decision.
Atty. Obminas efforts of shifting the blame on Carandang only serve to emphasize his
failure to notify Carandang that trial court already promulgated a decision in his case that
was adverse to his interests.
Instead of letting Carandang know of the adverse decision himself, Atty. should have
immediately contacted Carandang, explained the decision to him, and advised them on
further steps that could be taken. Notwithstanding Atty. Obminas subsequent withdrawal
as Carandangs lawyer, Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record at the time the trial court
promulgated the decision.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is need for the lawyer to
inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the clients
case.
The Court SUSPENDS atty. Obmina from the practice of law for one year.