CANON 18Code of Professional

Responsibility

CANON 18

A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT

WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Suarez v. CA, 220 SCRA 274 (1993)

    A client may reasonably expect that his counsel will make good his representations  and has the right to expect that his lawyer will protect his interests during the trial of the case.         For the general employment of an attorney to prosecute or defend a cause or proceeding ordinarily vests in a plaintiff’s attorney the implied authority to take all steps or do all acts necessary or incidental to the regular and orderly prosecution or management of the suit, and in a defendant’s attorney the power to take such steps as it deems necessary to defend the suit and protect the interests of the defendant.

Blaza vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 461

The legal profession demands a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family and should adopt “the norm of practice expected of men of good intentions.

Rules 18.1

A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Islas vs. Platon, 47 Phil. 162When a lawyer accepts a case, whether for a fee or not, his acceptance is an implied representation:    1. that he possess the requisite degree of academic learning, skill and ability in the practice of his profession;         2. that he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him;         3. that he will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case; and        4. that he will take steps as will adequately safeguard his client’s interests.

Garcia vs. Flores, 101 Phil. 781 (1951)

    It should be stressed that what a lawyer may not delegate in the absence of he client’s consent is the confidence reposed in him, as distinguished from the work involved therein.      A lawyer has the implied power to delegate to his associate or assistant attorney, under his supervision and responsibility, part or the whole of the legal work required to be performed in the prosecution or defense of the client’s cause.

Robinson vs. Villafuerte, 18 Phil. 121 (1911)

    A lawyer may not, however, delegate to any layman any work which involves a study ofthe law or its application, such as the computation and determination of the period within which to appeal an adverse judgment, the examination of witnesses or the presentation of evidence.

Rules 18.2

A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate

preparation.

Bautista vs. Rebueno, 81 SCRA 535

    A lawyer must keep himself constantly abreast with the trend of authoritative pronouncements and developments in all branches of the law.

Javellana vs. Lutero, 20 SCRA 717 (1967)

    The full protection of the client’s interests requires no less than a mastery of theapplicable law and facts involved in a case, regardless of the nature of the assignment and keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the law.

Legarda vs. CA, G. R. No. 94457, March 18, 1991

    A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so many cases he can handle. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less then he is not true to his oath as a lawyer.

Rules 18.3

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, 220 SCRA 274 (1993)

By agreeing to be his client’s counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefore, and his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.

Phil. Bank of Commerce vs. Aruego, C.A.-G.R. No. 28274, June 18, 1965

The legal profession is a jealous mistress which demands of a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family.  A lawyer is required to exercise ordinary diligence or that a reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, as any member of the bar similarly situated commonly possesses and exercises.

Adarne vs. Aldaba, 83 SCRA 735

An attorney is not required to exercise extraordinary diligence but only a reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do.

In re: Filart, 40 Phil. 205

An attorney is not expected to know all the laws. He is not liable for disbarment for an honest mistake or error. He is not an insurer of the result in a case where he is engaged in as a counsel.  Only ordinary care and diligence are required of him.

Instances of Negligence of Attorneys1. Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to answer a complaint resulting in a defaultjudgment against his client (Mapua vs. Mendoza, 45 Phil. 424). 2. Failure to bring suit immediately. When the belated suit was filed, the defendant hadalready become insolvent and recovery could no longer be had. The lawyer was declaredliable to the client (Filinvest Land vs. CA, 182 SCRA 664). 3. Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post office of notice of decision resulting in thenon-perfection of the appellant’s appeal (Joven-De Jesus vs. PNB, 12 SCRA 447).

4. Failure to file briefs within the reglementary period (People vs. Cawili, 34 SCRA 728). 5. Failure to attend to trial without filing a motion for postponement or without requestingeither of his two partners in the law office to take his place and appear for the defendants(Gaerlan vs. Bernal, G.R. No. L-4049, Jan. 28, 1952). Failure to appear at pre-trial (Agravantevs. Patriarca, 183 SCRA 113). 6. Failure of counsel to notify clients of the scheduled trial which prevented the latter to lookto another lawyer to represent them while counsel was in the hospital (Ventura vs. Santos,59 Phil. 123).

7. Failure to appear simply because the client did not go to counsel’s office on the date ofthe trial as was agreed upon (Alcoriza vs. Lumakang, Adm. Case No. 249, November 21,1978). 8. Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after receiving the amount for the purpose(Capulong vs. Alino, 22 SCRA 491). 9. Failure to take action to have adverse decision reconsidered (PHHC vs. Tiongco, 207SCRA 153) or failure to appeal the adverse decision (Francisco, Jr. vs. Bosa and Bandong,205 SCRA 722).

10. Failure to notify the court of counsel’s change of address resulting in failure to receivejudicial orders to the prejudice of the client (Juane vs. Garcia, 25 SCRA 801) 11. Failure to take necessary precaution to insure that he receives all court notices andprocesses promptly (Javier vs. Madamba, Jr., 174 SCRA 495). 12. Failure to present evidence (Gonzales vs. Presiding Judge of Branch I, RTC of Bohol, 186SCRA 101).47 13. Failure to file the required position paper which prejudiced client’s cause (Lorenzana FoodCorp. vs. Daria, 197 SCRA 249).

Instances where the client is not bound by counsel’s negligence: (a) In the case of an irresponsible lawyer who totally forgot about the case and failed to inform his client of the decision, the Supreme Court held that the client should not be bound by the negligence of the counsel. (Republic vs. Arro, 150 SCRA 630) (b) A party is not bound by the actions of his counsel in case the gross negligence of the counsel resulted in the client’s deprivation of his property without due process (Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418).

(c) “Where there is something fishy and suspicious about the actuations of the former counsel of petitioners in the case at bar, in the case he did not give any significance at all to the processesof the court, which has proven prejudicial to the rights of said clients, under a lame and flimsy explanation that the courts processes just escaped his attention, it is held that the said lawyerdeprived his clients of their day in court (PHHC vs. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471). (d) Application of the rule, “results in the outright deprivation of one’s property through a technicality.” (Escudero vs. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69, 78)

(e) In the case of an irresponsible lawyer who totally forgot about the case and failed to inform hisclient of the decision, the Supreme Court held that the client should not be bound by thenegligence of the counsel. (Republic vs. Arro, et al., 150 SCRA 630) (f) A party is not bound by the actions of his counsel in case the gross negligence of the counselresulted in the client’s deprivation of his property without due process. (Legarda vs. Court ofAppeals, 195 SCRA 418)

(g) The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the appeal for the failure to file the appellant’s brief on time, it appearing that the appellant’s former counsel had abandoned him and could not be contacted despite earnest efforts. (Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,250 SCRA 371) (h) The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order, the same being due to the trial counsel’s blunder in procedure and gross negligence of existing jurisprudence. (Escudero vs. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69)

(i) It was once ruled that the unconscionable failure of a lawyer to inform his client of the receipt of the court order and the motion for execution and to take the appropriate action against either or both to protect his client’s rights amounted to connivance with the prevailing party which constituted extrinsic fraud. (Bayog vs. Natino, 258 SCRA 378) 

Rules 18.4

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.

Alcala vs. De Vera, 56 SCRA 30

In failing to inform his client of the decision in the civil case handled by him, the lawyer failed to exercise such skill, care and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment.  The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client’s being adequately and fullyinformed and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are being defended.

Oparel vs. Abaria, 40 SCRA 128 (1971)

The client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by which his interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted.

Avelino v. Palaña

Atty. P failed to inform his clients of the trial. Atty. P is also charged with malpractice for having failed to pursue two (2) motion for new trial-1st motion for new trial : filed out of time-2nd motion for new trial : Atty. P failed to comply with the Court’s order on giving notice to adverse party Atty. D’s claim that it was due to "a severe stomach ache” is obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in due time of the date of the trial.