LEGARDA v CA

GR No. 94457
June 10, 1992
GANCAYCO, J.

Facts:
Petitioner was a previous defendant in a complaint for filed by New Cathay House, Inc., compelling
Legarda to sign a lease contract involving her house and lot at Quezon City which the private respondent
intended to use in operating a restaurant.
Thereafter, Antonio P. Coronel appeared as counsel for Legarda and filed an urgent motion for an
extension of ten (10) days to file an answer. She failed to answer within the extended period, and the lower
court had rendered a decision by default compelling her to sign the lease contract and to pay the damages.
Atty. Coronel received a copy of the lower court's decision but he did not appeal rendering the
decision final. On November 1986, Victoria Legarda, represented by her attorney-in-fact, filed in the CA a
petition for annulment of the judgment where it was dismissed, however, Atty. Coronel did not file a
motion for reconsideration.
On December 1989, New Cathay House, Inc. sent petitioner through the Coronel Law Office, a
notice to vacate within three days from receipt thereof. Atty. Coronel did not inform petitioner until
sometime in March, 1990.
On August 1990, the petitioner’s new counsel filed a petition for certiorari contending that the
decisions of the courts are void as petitioner was deprived to be heard and stripped of her property without
due process of law through the negligence of previous counsel, Atty. Antonio Coronel.
March 18, 1991, Supreme Court declared the previous decisions as null and void and required the
former counsel of petitioner, Atty. Antonio Coronel, to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why
he should not be held administratively liable for his acts and omissions.
Atty. Coronel filed an urgent ex-parte motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to
file his explanation due to the motion pressure of work. A day after the expiration of the 30-day extended
period, he filed another urgent motion for a second extension of thirty (30) days as he had been confined
at the St. Luke's Hospital, which has been denied.
ISSUE:
Did Atty. Coronel committed a gross negligence which resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner?
HELD:
Yes. Undoubtedly, Atty. Coronel's failure to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the
interest of his client caused the latter material prejudice. The facts of the case clearly show that Atty. Coronel
violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and failed to observe particularly Rule 18.03 of
the same Code which requires that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
It should be remembered that the moment a 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.
 Moreover, a lawyer owes fealty, not only to his client, but also to the Court of which he is an officer.
Atty. Coronel failed to obey this Court's order even on a matter that personally affects him, such that one
cannot avoid the conclusion that he must be bent on professional self-destruction.
RULING:
The second motion for an extension of time to file explanation is hereby DENIED. Atty. Antonio P.
Coronel is hereby found GUILTY of gross negligence in the defense of petitioner Victoria Legarda and
accordingly SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from the date of
his receipt of this resolution. A repetition of the acts constituting gross negligence shall be dealt with more
severely.
Let a copy of this resolution be attached to his personal record, another copy be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and copies thereof be circulated in all the courts.