BASIC LEGAL ETHICS (5-6)

1. Atty. Primitivo, lawyer of Cresencio in a civil case, received an adverse decision on the
case. He entrusted to his secretary the duty to inform the client of the adverse
decision. The secretary informed the client rather late and with wrong information
that they still have a period of thirty days within which to appeal the decision.
Cresencio, thus, lost his opportunity to appeal the adverse decision. Cresencio filed
an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Primitivo where the latter for his
defense passed the blame on his secretary. Is Atty. Primitivo guilty of negligence?
(Roldan Vs Panganiban, AC No. 4552, Dec. 14. 2004, Adaza vs Barinaga, AC No., 1604,
May 29. 1981)

Yes.

Atty. Primitivofailed to ensure that the client was advised appropriately. He

entrusted entirely with his secretary the duty to inform the complainant about the
adverse decision. And the secretary informed the complainant rather late and worse
with the wrong information that the complainant has still a month within which to
file an appeal. This resulted to the lapse of the prescriptive period to appeal without
complainant having availed of the said remedy.(Roldan Vs Panganiban)As mandated
byRule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.A
lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.  Counsel
should exert all effort to protect the interest of his client.

The SC find respondent's explanation to be unsatisfactory. His negligence

prevented the Adaza’s from exhausting their legal remedies to secure a reversal of
the judgment against them.Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the
scapegoat patsy for the delay in the filing of pleadings, motions and other papers and
for the lawyer's dereliction of duty is a common alibi of practicing lawyers. Like the
alibi of the accused in criminal cases, counsel's shifting of the blame to his office
employee is usually a concoction utilized to cover up his own negligence,
incompetence, indolence and ineptitude. (Adaza vs.Barinaga)

2. May lawyers be held liable for damages for negligence in the handling of a case?

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR providesthat a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.

A lawyer is liable for his negligence, if by reason of a lawyer’s negligence,

actual loss has been caused to his client, the latter has a cause of action against him
for damages (5 A. Jur. 323). However, for a lawyer to be held liable, his failure to
exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence must be the proximate cause of the loss
(7 C.J.S. 980)