EDGAR O. PEREA vs. ATTY.

RUBEN ALMADRO
AC NO. 5246 MARCH 20, 2003

FACTS:
Atty. Almadro was a counsel in a case where Perea was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. In 1996, the RTC granted
Atty. Almadro’s motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within 10 days from said date. However, sometime in 1999, the
complainant learned that Atty. Almadro failed to file any demurrer. After the trial court ordered the complainant to present his
evidence, a warrant of his arrest prompted the complainant to surrender to the court and post bail.

Complainant suffered financially and emotionally due to the respondent's neglect of his duties. Respondent has not attended any of
his hearings which led complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw formally as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer.
Because of Atty. Almadro's neglect, the complainant is now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood. It was only in 2000 that
the respondent provided an Answer containing several reasons for his “neglect” that the magnetic computer diskette where the
motion was stored was lost; that he was preoccupied with his position at the PSE in connection with the BW scam; he was merely a
collaborating counsel.

The IBP stated that they are not convinced about the truth of respondent’s explanations as there are pertinent facts that did not align:
as he stated he did not receive the copy of the complaint but then he filed for further extension of time to file comment. Moreover,
he contends that he is in solo practice, so everything must be within his supervision and control. Hence, the IBP recommends a
suspension of 2 years and a fine of 10,000.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Almadro violated the provision of CPRA for failing to serve his client with competence and diligence.

RULING:
YES. The Court agrees with the IBP’s recommendation stating the provision of the CPRA that “a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.” It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he
had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which his client, herein complainant was relying on. More than that, he failed
to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and
without any protection when years later, he received summons from the trial court asking him to present evidence in his defense
and, not long after, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.

In other cases, the Court also held that while a lawyer may decline a person to become his client for valid reasons, once he agrees to
take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him. As a lawyer, he must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of
his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client,
save by the rules of law legally applied.

Respondent's negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic
diskette, mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to believe that the same was already
filed in court. In his Answer, he even tried to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling on the
procedural steps he would undertake regarding the complainant's case when instead he received a copy of this complaint for
disbarment. Such a story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but is contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Ruben Almadro guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect
for the court and the authority it represents, as embodied in Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and FINED in the amount of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a WARNING that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.