2/3/2017 CanoyvsOrtiz:AC5485:March16,2005:J.

Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

SECONDDIVISION

[A.C.No.5485.March16,2005]

ELMERCANOY,complainant,vs.ATTY.JOSEMAXORTIZ,respondent.

DECISION
TINGA,J.:

Therearenogoodreasonsthatwouldjustifyalawyervirtuallyabandoningthecauseoftheclient
in the midst of litigation without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the
lawyerforsookhislegalpracticeonaccountofwhatmightbeperceivedasahighercalling,electionto
publicoffice,doesnotmitigatethederelictionofprofessionalduty.Suspensionfromthepracticeisthe
usualpenalty,andthereisnoreasontodeviatefromthenorminthiscase.
[1]
AComplaint dated10April2001wasfiledwiththeOfficeoftheBarConfidantbyElmerCanoy
(Canoy)accusingAtty.JoseMaxOrtiz(Atty.Ortiz)ofmisconductandmalpractice.Itwasallegedthat
Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers
Philippines.ThecomplaintwasfiledwiththeNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)Regional
[2]
ArbitrationBoardVIinBacolodCity. Atty.OrtizappearedascounselforCanoyinthisproceeding.
In1998,thelaborarbiterhearingthecomplaintorderedthepartiestosubmittheirrespectiveposition
papers.CanoysubmittedallthenecessarydocumentsandrecordstoAtty.Ortizforthepreparationof
thepositionpaper.Thereafter,hemadeseveralunfruitfulvisitstotheofficeofAtty.Ortiztofollowup
the progress of the case. After a final visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April of 2000, during which
Canoy was told to come back as his lawyer was not present, Canoy decided to followup the case
himselfwiththeNLRC.Hewasshockedtolearnthathiscomplaintwasactuallydismissedwayback
[3]
in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position papers. The
dismissalwaswithoutprejudice.CanoyallegedthatAtty.Ortizhadnevercommunicatedtohimabout
thestatusofthecase,muchlessthefactthathefailedtosubmitthepositionpaper.
[4]
TheComment filedbyAtty.Ortizistheepitomeofselfhagiography.HeinformstheCourtthat
sincecommencinghislawpracticein1987,hehasmostlycateredtoindigentandlowincomeclients,
at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty. Ortiz claims that for more than ten years, his law
officewasavirtualadjunctofthePublicAttorneysOfficewithitssteadystreamofnonpayingclients
[5]
inthehundredsorthousands. Atthesametime,hehostedalegalassistanceshowontheradio,
[6]
cateringtofarflungmunicipalitiesandreachingthepeoplewhoneedlegaladviceandassistance.
Atty.OrtizpursuedonwiththislifestyleuntilhiselectionasCouncilorofBacolodCity,avictorywhich
he generously attributes to the help of the same people whom he had helped by way of legal
[7]
assistancebefore.
Canoy was among those lowincome clients whom Atty. Ortiz deigned to represent. The lawyer
was apparently confident that the illegal dismissal case would eventually be resolved by way of
compromise.HeclaimshavingpreparedthepositionpaperofCanoy,butbeforehecouldsubmitthe
[8]
same,theLaborArbiterhadalreadyissuedtheorderdismissingthecase. Atty.Ortizadmitsthough
thattheperiodwithinwhichtofilethepositionpaperhadalreadylapsed.Heattributesthisfailureto
timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, he was
franklypreoccupiedwithbothhisfunctionsasalocalgovernmentofficialandasapracticinglawyer.
Eventually,hisdesiretohelpwasbeyondphysicallimitations,andhewithdrewfromhisothercases
[9]
andhisfreelegalservices.
AccordingtoAtty.Ortiz,Mr.Canoyshouldhaveatleastunderstoodthatduringallthattime,he
wasfreetovisitorcalltheofficeandbeentertainedbythesecretaryas[he]wouldnormallyreportto
[10]
theofficeintheafternoonashehadtoattendtocourttrialsandreporttotheSanggunianoffice.
Hestatesthatitwashispolicytoinformclientsthattheyshouldbetheonestofollowuptheircases
with his office, as it would be too difficult and a financial burden to attend making followups with
[11]
hundredsofclients,mostlyindigentswithonlytwoofficepersonnel.
Nonetheless,Atty.OrtiznotesthatthedismissalofCanoyscomplaintwaswithoutprejudice,thus
the prescriptive period had been tolled. He claims not being able to remember whether he
immediatelyinformedCanoyofthedismissalofthecase,thoughasfarashecouldrecall,Canoyhad
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_5485.htm 1/4
2/3/2017 CanoyvsOrtiz:AC5485:March16,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

conveyedamessagetohimthathehadalawyertohandlethecase,thushisofficedidnotinsiston
[12]
refilingthesame.
ThematterwasreferredtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,reportand
[13]
recommendation. Canoy eventually submitted a motion withdrawing the complaint, but this was
not favorably acted upon by the IBP in view of the rule that the investigation of a case shall not be
[14]
interrupted or terminated by reason of withdrawal of the charges. Eventually, the investigating
commissionerconcludedthatclearly,therecordsshowthat[Atty.Ortiz]failedtoexercisethatdegree
ofcompetenceanddiligencerequiredofhiminprosecutinghisclients(sic)claim,andrecommended
[15]
thatAtty.Ortizbereprimanded. TheIBPCommissiononDisciplineadoptedtherecommendation,
withtheslightmodificationthatAtty.Ortizbelikewisewarnedthatarepetitionofthesamenegligence
shallbedealtwithmoreseverelyinthefuture.
TheCourtissensitivetothedifficultiesinobtaininglegalrepresentationforindigentorlowincome
litigants. Apart from the heroic efforts of government entities such as the Public Attorneys Office,
groups such as the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid and the Office of Legal Aid of the UP
College of Law have likewise been at the forefront in the quest to provide legal representation for
thosewhocouldnototherwiseaffordtheservicesoflawyers.Theeffortsofprivatepractitionerswho
assistinthisgoalareespeciallycommendable,owingtotheirsacrificeintimeandresourcesbeyond
thecallofdutyandwithoutexpectationofpecuniaryreward.
Yet,theproblemofunderrepresentationofindigentorlowincomeclientsisjustasgrievousas
that of nonrepresentation. Admirable as the apparent focus of Atty. Ortizs legal practice may have
been, his particular representation of Canoy in the latters illegal dismissal case leaves much to be
desired.
SeveralofthecanonsandrulesintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityguardagainstthesort
ofconductdisplayedbyAtty.OrtizwithrespecttothehandlingofCanoyscase.

CANON17ALAWYEROWESFIDELITYTOTHECAUSEOFHISCLIENTANDHESHALLBE
MINDFULOFTHETRUSTANDCONFIDENCEREPOSEDINHIM.

CANON18ALAWYERSHALLSERVEHISCLIENTWITHCOMPETENCEANDDILIGENCE.

...

Rule18.03Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewith
shallrenderhimliable.

Rule18.04Alawyershallkeeptheclientinformedofthestatusofhiscaseandshallrespondwithinareasonable
timetotheclientsrequestforinformation.

...

CANON22ALAWYERSHALLWITHDRAWHISSERVICESONLYFORGOODCAUSEANDUPON
NOTICEAPPROPRIATEINTHECIRCUMSTANCES.

...

Rule22.02Alawyerwhowithdrawsorisdischargedshall,subjecttoaretainerlien,immediatelyturnoverall
papersandpropertytowhichtheclientisentitled,andshallcooperatewithhissuccessorintheorderlytransfer
ofthematter,includingallinformationnecessaryfortheproperhandlingofthematter.

Atty.Ortizshouldhavefiledthepositionpaperontime,owingtohisdutyascounselofCanoyto
attendtothislegalmatterentrustedtohim.HisfailuretodosoconstitutesaviolationofRule18.03of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

Onceheagreestotakeupthecauseofaclient,alawyerowesfidelitytosuchcauseandmustalwaysbemindful
ofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim.Hemustservetheclientwithcompetenceanddiligenceand
championthelatter'scausewithwholeheartedfidelity,careanddevotion.Elsewisestated,heowesentire
devotiontotheinterestoftheclient,warmzealinthemaintenanceanddefenseofhisclient'srights,andthe
exertionofhisutmostlearningandabilitytotheendthatnothingbetakenorwithheldfromhisclient,saveby
therulesoflaw,legallyapplied.Thissimplymeansthathisclientisentitledtothebenefitofanyandevery
remedyanddefensethatisauthorizedbythelawofthelandandhemayexpecthislawyertoasserteverysuch
remedyordefense.Ifmuchisdemandedfromanattorney,itisbecausetheentrustedprivilegetopracticelaw
carrieswithitthecorrelativedutiesnotonlytotheclientbutalsotothecourt,tothebarandtothepublic.A
lawyerwhoperformshisdutywithdiligenceandcandornotonlyprotectstheinterestofhisclienthealso
servestheendsofjustice,doeshonortothebarandhelpsmaintaintherespectofthecommunitytothelegal
[16]
profession.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_5485.htm 2/4
2/3/2017 CanoyvsOrtiz:AC5485:March16,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

IfindeedAtty.Ortizsschedule,workload,orphysicalconditionwassuchthathewouldnotbeable
tomakeatimelyfiling,heshouldhaveinformedCanoyofsuchfact.Therelationshipoflawyerclient
being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully
informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and
[17]
mannerinwhichhis/herinterestsarebeingdefended.
There could have been remedies undertaken to this inability of Atty. Ortiz to file on time the
positionpaperhadCanoybeentoldofsuchfact,suchasarequestformoretimetofiletheposition
paper,ormaybeeventhehiringofcollaboratingcounselorsubstitutionofAtty.Ortizascounsel.Since
Atty.Ortizdidnotexercisethenecessarydegreeofcarebyeitherfilingthepositionpaperontimeor
informing Canoy that the paper could not be submitted seasonably, the ignominy of having the
complaintdismissedforfailuretoprosecutecouldnotbeavoided.
That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing Canoy to refile the case, hardly
servestomitigatetheliabilityofAtty.Ortiz,asthefailuretofilethepositionpaperisperseaviolation
[18]
ofRule18.03.
Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortizs election as a City Councilor of
Bacolod City, as his adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent
behavior.TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitydoesallowalawyertowithdrawhislegalservicesif
[19]
the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office. Statutes expressly prohibit the occupant of
[20]
particularpublicofficesfromengaginginthepracticeoflaw,suchasgovernorsandmayors, and
[21]
in such instance, the attorneyclient relationship is terminated. However, city councilors are
allowedtopracticetheirprofessionorengageinanyoccupationexceptduringsessionhours,andin
the case of lawyers such asAtty. Ortiz, subject to certain prohibitions which are not relevant to this
[22] [23]
case. Insuchcase,thelawyerneverthelesshasthechoicetowithdrawhis/herservices. Still,
theseveranceoftherelationofattorneyclientisnoteffectiveuntilanoticeofdischargebytheclient
oramanifestationclearlyindicatingthatpurposeisfiledwiththecourtortribunal,andacopythereof
[24]
servedupontheadverseparty,anduntilthen,thelawyercontinuestobecounselinthecase.
AssumingthatAtty.Ortizwasjustifiedinterminatinghisservices,he,however,cannotjustdoso
[25]
and leave complainant in the cold unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who
withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to
whichtheclientisentitled,andshallcooperatewithhissuccessorintheorderlytransferofthematter.
Atty.Ortizclaimsthatthereasonwhyhetooknofurtheractiononthecasewasthathewasinformed
that Canoy had acquired the services of another counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no
apparentcoordinationbetweenAtty.Ortizandthisnewcounsel.
In fact, it took nearly two years before Canoy had learned that the position paper had not been
filedandthatthecasehadbeendismissed.ThiswashighlyirresponsibleofAtty.Ortiz,muchmoreso
consideringthatCanoywasoneoftheindigentclientswhomAtty.Ortizproudlyclaimsashisfavored
clientele. It does not escape the Courts attention that Atty. Ortiz faults Canoy for not adequately
[26]
followingupthecasewithhisoffice. Hecannotnowshifttheblametocomplainantforfailingto
inquire about the status of the case, since, as stated above, it was his duty as lawyer to inform his
[27]
clientsofthestatusofcasesentrustedtohim.
The appropriate sanction is within the sound discretion of this Court. In cases of similar nature,
thepenaltyimposedbytheCourtconsistedofeitherareprimand,afineoffivehundredpesoswith
[28]
warning, suspension of three months, six months, and even disbarment in aggravated cases.
Giventhecircumstances,theCourtfindsthepenaltyrecommendedbytheIBPtoolenientandinstead
suspendsAtty.Ortizfromthepracticeoflawforone(1)month.Thegraverpenaltyofsuspensionis
warrantedinlieuofanadmonitionorareprimandconsideringthatAtty.Ortizsundisputednegligence
infailingtotimelyfilethepositionpaperwascompoundedbyhisfailuretoinformCanoyofsuchfact,
andthesuccessivedismissalofthecomplaint.
Lawyerswhodevotetheirprofessionalpracticeinrepresentinglitigantswhocouldillaffordlegal
servicesdeservecommendation.However,thismantleofpublicservicewillnotdeliverthelawyer,no
matter how wellmeaning, from the consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough to say that all
pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. They deserve quality representation as
well.
WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.JoseMaxS.OrtizisorderedSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeof
law for one (1) month from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence will be
dealtwithmoreseverely.Letacopyofthisdecisionbeattachedtorespondent'spersonalrecordin
the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippinesandtoallthecourtsintheland.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_5485.htm 3/4
2/3/2017 CanoyvsOrtiz:AC5485:March16,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

[1]
Rollo,pp.23.
[2]
Id.at2.
[3]
Id.at3.
[4]
Id.at2329.
[5]
Id.at23.
[6]
Id.at24.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Id.at26.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Id.at27.
[13]
InaResolutiondated4December2002.Id.at41.
[14]
SeeIBPReportandRecommendation,p.2.
[15]
Id.at3.
[16]
Santecov.Atty.Avance,A.C.No.5834,11December2003,418SCRA6,13citingRamosv.Jacoba,A.C.No.5505,
27September2001.
[17]
Garciav.Atty.Manuel,A.C.No.5811,20January2003,395SCRA386,390.
[18]
SeeEndayav. Atty. Oca, A.C. No. 3967, 3 September 2003, 410 SCRA 244, 253. Respondent's failure to file the
affidavitsandpositionpaperattheMCTCdidnotactuallyprejudicehisclients,forthecourtneverthelessrendereda
decisionfavorabletothem.However,thefailureisperseaviolationofRule18.03.
[19]
SeeRule22.01(f),CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
[20]
SeeSection90(a),LocalGovernmentCode.
[21]
R.AGPALO,THECODEOFPROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY(1sted.,1991),at299citingAquinov.Blanco,79
Phil.647(1947)&OmicoMining&IndustrialCorp.v.Vallejos,63SCRA285(1975).
[22]
SeeSection90(b),LocalGovernmentCode.
[23]
AGPALO,supranote21,at300.
[24]
Baquiran v. Court of Appeals, 112 Phil. 764 (1961) & Bacarro v. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 36 (1971), cited in
AGPALO,supranote21,at294.
[25]
Orcinov.Gaspar,344Phil.792,800(1997).
[26]
Supranote12.
[27]
ZarateBustamantev.Atty.Libatique,418Phil.249,255(2001)
[28]
Endayav.Atty.Oca,supranote18,at255256,citingcases.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_5485.htm 4/4