Basic Legal and Judicial Ethics

Topic: The Lawyer and The Courts

Professor: Dr. Fay Albarico
Reporter: Ma. Luisa J. Reves
[ AC. No. 3967, Sep 03, 2003 ]

ARTEMIO ENDAYA
vs.
ATTY. WILFREDO OCA

Ponente: Tinga, J.
 FACTS: ISSUE:
It started due to a complaint for unlawful detainer Whether or not the respondent failed to adhere to the
against spouses Artemio and Patosenia Endaya. The lawyer's oath and Code of Professional Responsibility?
spouses filed their answer on the said case which was
prepared by a certain Mr. Isaias Ramirez. During the RULING:
preliminary conference, the spouses attended without Yes The Court is convinced that respondent
counsel and sought for the services of the PAO who violated the lawyer's oath not only once but a
assigned the respondent to handle their case. number of times in regard to the handling of
his clients' cause.  The repeated violations also
The respondent attended When the case was
involve defilement of several Canons in
for the spouse and was appealed through the
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
asked by the court to file RTC, both parties were
for their affidavits and directed to file their
position paper however respective memoranda. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Wilfredo Oca is
the respondent failed to The respondent did not ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
submit. Nonetheless, the file the memorandum for (2) months from notice, with the warning that a similar
court dismissed the his clients.The decision misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy
complaint in favor of the was reversed in favor of of this decision be attached to respondent's personal
spouses Endaya. the other party. record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be
furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
This prompted the complainant to file for administrative Philippines (IBP) and to all the courts in the land.
complaint against respondent.
 Found in the oath is the duty of a lawyer to
protect and safeguard the interest of his client.
Specifically, it requires a lawyer to conduct
himself "to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to his clients.“ This duty is further
stressed in Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandates that "(A) lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.“
When respondent was directed to file
affidavits and position paper by the MCTC, and
appeal memorandum by the RTC, he had no
choice but to comply.  However, respondent did
not bother to do so, in total disregard of the
court orders. This constitutes negligence and
malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates that "(A) lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.“
It was respondent's failure to file appeal
memorandum before the RTC which made
complainant and his wife suffer as it resulted in
their loss of the case. As found by the Office of
the Bar Confidant, to which we fully subscribe,
in not filing the appeal memorandum
respondent denied complainant and his spouse
the chance of putting up a fair fight in the
dispute.  Canon 19 prescribes that "(A) lawyer
shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law."
Respondent likewise failed to demonstrate
the candor he owed his client. Canon
17 provides that "(A) lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him."
[ AC. No. 7813, Apr 15, 2009 ]

CARLITO P. CARANDANG
vs.
ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA

Ponente: Carpio, J.
 FACTS:
A written sworn statement was sent by the
complainant to the IBP through the help of an
attorney he met in Malacanang. On the said sworn
statement, he alleged that Atty. Obmina failed to
serve him as his client with competence and
diligence.
Respondent is his counsel for the case in regard to
his house and lot in Binan, Laguna. Complainant
averred that they lost the chance to appeal for the
case because their counsel did not inform them that
the case in RTC has been closed and that they have
lost. When he filed the said administrative case, he
was asked to get an attorney’s withdrawal which he
did but find out that respondent is already
permanently residing in the US.
Since Atty. Obmina is already in the US, her
daughter appears on his behalf as counsel who
presented documents that the former is already a
permanent resident in the US and no longer
practicing law.
IBP Commissioner recommended suspension of the
complainant from practice of law for a period of one
year. Although the said respondent is reportedly in the
United States of America and accordingly retired from
the practice of law, this Commission will not close its
eyes on the negligence that he has committed while in
the active practice.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Obmina failed to serve
complainant with competence and diligence?
RULING:
Court says:
Court says:
We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt
We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt
its recommendations. Atty. Obmina violated Canon
its recommendations. Atty. Obmina violated Canon
18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Professional Responsibility.
The Court finds well-taken the recommendation of
The Court finds well-taken the recommendation of
the IBP to suspend Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina from
the IBP to suspend Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina from
the practice of law for one year.
the practice of law for one year.
 Canon 18 states that "[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." Rules
Canon 18 states that "[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." Rules
18.03 and 18.04 provide that "[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
18.03 and 18.04 provide that "[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable" and "[a] lawyer shall keep the
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable" and "[a] lawyer shall keep the
client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client's request for information."
client's request for information."

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Accordingly, Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 18 and of Rules
Accordingly, Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 18 and of Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDS Atty.
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDS Atty.
Gilbert S. Obmina from the practice of law for one year and WARNS him that a repetition of
Gilbert S. Obmina from the practice of law for one year and WARNS him that a repetition of
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
[ AC. No. 5718, Dec 04, 2003 ]

EDUARDO T. ABAY
vs.
ATTY. RAUL T. MONTESINO

Ponente: Panganiban, J.
 FACTS:
 Complainant as one of the stockholder of Negros
 Complainant as one of the stockholder of Negros
Institute of Technology (NIT) hired the
Institute of Technology (NIT) hired the
respondent as counsel in a case for "Cancellation
respondent as counsel in a case for "Cancellation
of Title of Ownership, Recovery of Ownership
of Title of Ownership, Recovery of Ownership
and Possession and Damages with Preliminary
and Possession and Damages with Preliminary
Injunction" against the estate of Vicente T. Galo.
Injunction" against the estate of Vicente T. Galo.
RTC dismissed the civil case as well as their
 RTC dismissed the civil case as well as their
Motion for Reconsideration. The respondent
Motion for Reconsideration. The respondent
then filed a Notice to Appeal with the CA but
then filed a Notice to Appeal with the CA but
failed to submit an appellant’s brief. Due to this,
failed to submit an appellant’s brief. Due to this,
the CA dismissed the appeal.
the CA dismissed the appeal.
Complainant attributes the failure of respondent
 Complainant attributes the failure of respondent
to submit the brief to the latter's gross negligence
to submit the brief to the latter's gross negligence
and evident bad faith. Respondent allegedly
and evident bad faith. Respondent allegedly
abandoned the appeal without the knowledge
abandoned the appeal without the knowledge
and consent of the NIT.
and consent of the NIT.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
We agree with the findings and
We agree with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP that the respondent is
recommendation of the IBP that the respondent is
guilty of violating the Code of Professional
guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Responsibility.
The Code of Professional Responsibility
The Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates lawyers to serve their clients with
mandates lawyers to serve their clients with
competence and diligence. Rules 18.03 and 18.04
competence and diligence. Rules 18.03 and 18.04
specifically provide:
specifically provide:
"Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
"Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
connection therewith shall render him liable.
"Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client
"Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond
informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for
within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.“
information.“
We emphasize that all lawyers owe fidelity to
We emphasize that all lawyers owe fidelity to
their client's cause.  Regardless of their personal
their client's cause.  Regardless of their personal
views, they must present every remedy or defense
views, they must present every remedy or defense
within the authority of the law in support of that
within the authority of the law in support of that
cause.
cause.
 WHEREFORE, Atty. Raul T. Montesino is found guilty of negligence
WHEREFORE, Atty. Raul T. Montesino is found guilty of negligence
and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months,
and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months,
effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of
effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of
the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
THANK YOU!!!