Hernandez vs. Padilla

A lawyer who accepts a case assumes the duty to serve the client with competence and diligence, and negligence in handling a legal matter entrusted to him renders him liable for disciplinary action. The lawyer's lack of time to acquaint himself with the case, or the client's alleged misrepresentation as to the proper pleading, does not excuse his failure to know the correct procedural requirements, to inform the client of the status of the case, and to take appropriate remedial measures when the appeal was dismissed.

The complainant and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. After an adverse Decision dated 28 June 2002, they filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Court of Appeals ordered them to file their Appellants' Brief. They engaged the respondent, a lawyer of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices, to represent them in the appeal. The case involves the disciplinary consequences of a lawyer's negligence in handling a client's appeal, governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Emilia Hernandez and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In a Decision dated 28 June 2002, penned by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang, the RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale executed in favor of complainant be cancelled and that she pay the complainant therein, Elisa Duigan, attorney's fees and moral damages.

Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals ordered them to file their Appellants' Brief. They chose respondent, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices, to represent them in the case. On their behalf, he filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants' Brief. Consequently, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, which the CA granted in a Resolution dated 16 December 2003. No Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution was filed by the couple. Complainant claims that because respondent ignored the Resolution, he acted with "deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law." Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal because respondent never informed them of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims that she asked respondent "several times" about the status of the appeal, but "despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response [sic]," to the damage and prejudice of the spouses.

The Resolution became final and executory on 8 January 2004. Complainant was informed of the Resolution sometime in July 2005, when the Sheriff of the RTC came to her house and informed her of the Resolution. On 9 September 2005, complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, seeking the disbarment of respondent on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct, and praying for moral damages in the amount of ₱350,000.

In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer, respondent prayed for the outright dismissal of the Complaint. He explained that he was not the lawyer of complainant, averring that prior to the mandatory conference set by the IBP on 13 December 2005, he had never met complainant because it was her husband who had personally transacted with him. According to respondent, the husband "despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because according to him the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or three days." Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed that "it is this pleading which was required." Before filing the Memorandum, respondent advised complainant's husband to settle the case, and the latter allegedly "gestured approval of the advice." After the husband picked up the Memorandum for filing, respondent never saw or heard from him again and thus assumed that the husband heeded his advice and settled the case. When respondent received an Order from the CA requiring him to file a comment on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Duigan, he "instructed his office staff to contact Mr. Hernandez thru available means of communication, but to no avail." When complainant's husband went to respondent's office to tell him that the Sheriff had informed complainant of the CA's Resolution dismissing the case, respondent was just as surprised, exclaiming, "KALA KO BA NAKIPAG AREGLO NA KAYO."

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended suspension from 3 to 6 months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation and suspended respondent for six months. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, praying for the relaxation of the application of the Canons of the Code, and the IBP Board of Governors partly granted his Motion, reducing the penalty to one-month suspension.

• Deceit and Malpractice: Complainant argued that respondent acted with "deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law" because he ignored the CA Resolution dismissing the appeal and never informed her of the adverse decision.
• Withholding of Information: Complainant claimed that she asked respondent "several times" about the status of the appeal, but "despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response [sic]," to the damage and prejudice of the spouses.
• Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship: Complainant pointed out in her Reply that respondent was her lawyer because he accepted her case and an acceptance fee in the amount of ₱7,000.

• Denial of Attorney-Client Relationship: Respondent insisted that he had never met complainant prior to the mandatory conference, because it was her husband who had personally transacted with him, and that the relationship was "no more than a client needing a legal document and had it prepared by a lawyer for a fee."
• Honest Mistake as to Pleading: Respondent claimed that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he "honestly believed" that this was the pleading required, based on what complainant's husband told him about the period given by the CA.
• Assumption of Settlement: Respondent argued that after the husband picked up the Memorandum for filing, he never saw or heard from him again and thus assumed that the husband heeded his advice to settle the case.
• Fee Only for Pleading Preparation: Respondent contended that the ₱7,000 fee was only for the preparation of the pleading, which was "even low for a Memorandum of Appeal," contrary to complainant's claim that it was an acceptance fee.
• Plea for Leniency: In his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent prayed for the relaxation of the application of the Canons of the Code, claiming that he "did not have enough time to acquaint himself thoroughly with the factual milieu of the case."

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Whether an attorney-client relationship existed between complainant and respondent despite respondent's claim that he dealt only with complainant's husband.
• Negligence in Handling the Appeal: Whether respondent's filing of a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants' Brief, and his failure to file a comment on the Motion to Dismiss, constituted negligence warranting disciplinary action.
• Failure to Inform Client: Whether respondent's failure to inform complainant of the status of her case and of the adverse Resolution violated his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of one-month suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors on reconsideration should be affirmed or whether the original six-month suspension should be reinstated.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Yes. An attorney-client relationship existed. A perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court revealed that respondent had signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants therein, including complainant and her husband, and nowhere does the document say that it was filed only on behalf of complainant's husband. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship.
• Negligence in Handling the Appeal: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the Code, which provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Having seen the RTC Decision, respondent should have known that the mode of appeal was by ordinary appeal under Section 2(a) Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, and that Rule 44 requires the filing of an appellant's brief.
• Failure to Inform Client: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 18.04 of the Code, which requires a lawyer to keep the client informed of the status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. His failure to inform his clients of the status of their case, or to file a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance if he could not contact them, proved his negligence.
• Penalty: The six-month suspension is affirmed. The IBP's reduction of the penalty to one month was improper; respondent's plea of lack of time did not excuse his negligence, and he should have filed a motion for extension of time instead of filing whatever pleading he could come up with to beat the deadline.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: The Court adopted the factual findings of the IBP Board of Governors. The Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court revealed that respondent had signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants therein, including complainant and her husband. The pleading started with the sentence: "DEFENDANT[S]-APPELLANTS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court submit the Memorandum and further allege that: x x x." Nowhere does the document say that it was filed only on behalf of complainant's husband. Citing Fernandez vs. Atty. Cabrera, the Court held that acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.
• Negligence in Handling the Appeal: The Court agreed with the IBP Investigating Commissioner's observation that regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it was respondent's duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. Having seen the Decision dated 18 June 2002 of the trial court, respondent should have known that the mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals for said Decision is by ordinary appeal under Section 2(a) Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, and that Rule 44 of the said Rules applies. Rule 44 requires that the appellant's brief be filed after the records of the case have been elevated to the CA. Respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know this procedure. The Court cited Dulalia, Jr. vs. Cruz for the proposition that lawyers are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law, and that this duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments. The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. If he felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters involved, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come up with, just to "beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals."
• Failure to Inform Client: The Court rejected respondent's explanation that he presumed complainant and her husband had already settled the case because he had not heard from the husband since the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal. There were several remedies that respondent could have availed himself of, from the moment he received the Notice from the CA to the moment he received the disbarment Complaint filed against him, but because of his negligence, he chose to sit on the case and do nothing. Respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case, and his failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code. If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, the least respondent could have done was to inform the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel, pursuant to Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. His failure to take this measure proved his negligence. The failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigan's Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part under Rule 18.03 of the Code.
• Penalty: The Court disagreed with the IBP Board of Governors' decision to reduce the penalty to one-month suspension. Respondent's plea for leniency should not have been granted. The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence. The Court affirmed the six-month suspension the Board originally imposed in its 28 August 2010 Resolution.

• Attorney-Client Relationship Established by Acceptance of Fee — Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. In this case, respondent's signing of the Memorandum of Appeal as counsel for the defendant-appellants, including complainant, and his acceptance of ₱7,000 established the relationship notwithstanding his claim that he dealt only with complainant's husband.
• Lawyer's Duty to Know Proper Procedure — A lawyer has the duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. Under Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments. The Court cited Dulalia, Jr. vs. Cruz for the proposition that lawyers are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law, and that this duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. Respondent's honest belief that a Memorandum on Appeal was the required pleading did not excuse his failure to know that Rule 44 requires an appellant's brief in ordinary appealed cases.
• Negligence as Ground for Disciplinary Liability — Under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. A lawyer's failure to file the proper pleading, to file a comment on a motion to dismiss, and to take remedial measures when the appeal was dismissed constitutes negligence warranting disciplinary action.
• Duty to Inform Client of Status of Case — Under Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. A lawyer who cannot contact his client should file a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel pursuant to Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court, rather than simply ignoring the case.

• "Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause." — This passage states the controlling doctrine on how an attorney-client relationship is established, which was central to the Court's rejection of respondent's defense that he was not complainant's lawyer.
• "Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it was respondent's duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the lawyer's duty to know proper procedure, which cannot be delegated to or excused by the client's beliefs or representations.
• "The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence." — This passage states the Court's rejection of respondent's plea for leniency and its basis for reinstating the six-month suspension.
• "If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, the least respondent could have done was to inform the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel." — This passage defines the minimum remedial measure a lawyer must take when unable to contact a client, the failure of which proves negligence.

• Fernandez vs. Atty. Cabrera, 463 Phil. 352 (2003) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause, and that a lawyer who violates his duties to his client engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for which he should be held accountable.
• Dulalia, Jr. vs. Cruz, A.C. No. 6854, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 244 — Cited for the proposition that lawyers are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law, and that this duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence.
• Santiago vs. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, 483 Phil. 94, 105 (2004) — Cited within Dulalia, Jr. vs. Cruz for the same proposition regarding the lawyer's duty to be conversant with basic legal principles.
• Perea vs. Atty. Almadro, 447 Phil. 434 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.

• Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence. The Court held that respondent violated this Canon by failing to know that Rule 44 requires an appellant's brief in ordinary appealed cases.
• Rule 18.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. The Court held that respondent's lack of time to acquaint himself with the facts of the case did not excuse his negligence, and that he should have filed a motion for extension of time instead of filing whatever pleading he could come up with to beat the deadline.
• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The Court held that respondent's failure to file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigan's Motion to Dismiss constituted negligence under this Rule.
• Rule 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. The Court held that respondent's failure to inform his clients of the status of their case violated this Rule.
• Section 2(a), Rule 41, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides for ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals from RTC decisions. The Court held that respondent should have known that this was the applicable mode of appeal in the case.
• Rule 44, Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that the appellant's brief be filed after the records of the case have been elevated to the CA. The Court held that respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know this procedure.
• Section 26, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides for the change of attorneys, including the procedure for an attorney to retire from an action. The Court held that respondent should have filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel if he could not contact his clients.
• Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Governs the procedure for disbarment and discipline of attorneys. The Court noted that the documents pertaining to the disbarment Complaint were transmitted to the Court pursuant to this Rule.

• Carpio, J. (Chairperson)
• Brion, J.
• Perez, J.
• Reyes, J.