ST.

DOMINIC SAVIO COLLEGE

Blk.1 Lot.1 Mountain Heights Subdivision
Quirino Highway, Caloocan City
Tel. No.: 02-507-3678
E-mail Address: savian_sdsc@yahoo.com

MA. VIDIA B. LARGO

Juris Doctor – Law
Legal Profession

EUSEBIO D. SISON, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. LOURDES PHILINA B.

DUMLAO, RESPONDENT.

[ A.C. No. 11959, April 28, 2021 ]

This is a case of disbarment complaint against Atty. Lourdes Philina B.

Dumlao (Atty. Dumlao) alleging that she committed misconduct when
she did not attend to her client with required competence and diligence.

Facts:
In this case, Mr. Sison and Atty. Dumlao are friends. That Mr. Sison
wants to file a case against his wife, Dr. Cynthia. That Mr. Sison
deposited Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 35,000) in Atty. Dumlao’s
bank account for the psychiatric evaluation fee. After nine months, Mr.
Sison alleged that Atty. Dumlao, failed to give any update on the filing of
the case, because of that, Dr. Sison lost his interest in filing a case
against his wife Dr. Cynthia, he instead wrote a demand letter to Atty.
Dumlao for the return of the Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 35,000).
Atty. Dumlao refused to give the 35,000 because according to the her,
she had referred the wife of the Mr. Sison to a psychologist in which the
Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 35,000) was paid. So the Mr. Sison
filed a verified complaint against Atty. Dumlao, charging the her for
violation of Canon 7, Canon 5, Canon 17, Canon 6, Canon 187, Code of
professional responsibility and Lawyers oath. The reason why Atty.
Dumlao refused to handle the case is because the wife of the Mr. Sison
was her 5th degree by consanguinity, then the mother of the wife of the
Mr. Sison approached and ask Atty. Dumlao not to handle the case due
to conflict of interest.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Dumlao violated the Code of Professional Ethics
when she failed to inform complainant of the status of his case and
refused to represent him due to conflict of interest.

Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Dumlao violated the Code of Professional Ethics when she
failed to inform the complainant of the status of his case and refused to
represent him due to conflict of interest. On the contrary, the series of
exchanges between the parties show that Atty. Dumlao voluntarily
acquiesced to representing complainant in his prospective annulment
case, or at the very least, render her legal assistance in his suit. She
asked complainant to submit to his documents related to the case and
repeatedly assured him that she would be filing the annulment complaint
even after complainant expressed hesitation due to the lack of action on
Atty. Dumlao's part. When complainant asked Atty. Dumlao for an
update on his case on February 26, 2014, she did not inform him that
she would no longer be connected with the case due to conflict of
interest, even though she was approached by complainant's mother-in-
law. It was only when she filed her Answer before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines that complainant learned of the reason why she would
not be representing him. The moment he agreed to handle the case, he
was bound to give it his utmost attention, skill and competence. Public
interest requires that he exerts his best efforts and all his learning and
ability in defense of his client's cause. Those who perform that duty with
diligence and candor not only safeguard the interests of the client, but
also serve the ends of justice. They do honor to the bar and help
maintain the community's respect for the legal profession. The
Investigating Commissioner was correct in finding that Atty. Dumlao did
not profit from complainant, since Mr. Domenden confirmed his receipt of
P35,000 for the psychological evaluation fee. This circumstance,
however, will not excuse Atty. Dumlao from administrative liability for
violating Canon 18, Rules 18 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as her oath to render "all good fidelity" to her
client. As in a similar case, she must be made liable for her inexcusable
negligence. Therefore, Atty. Lourdes Philina B. Dumlao was
reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Reference:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/ac_11959_2021.html
Code of Professional Responsibility (1988), Chapter II, Canon 7 states: Canon 7 - A lawyer shall
at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of
the integrated bar.

Code of Professional Responsibility (I988), Chapter IV, Canon 7 states: Canon 17-A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.

Code of Professional Responsibility (1988), Chapter IV, Canon 18 states: Canon 18 - A lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence.