Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abiero v. Juanino
Abiero v. Juanino
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p
A lawyer owes delity to the cause of his client at all times, mindful of the trust and
con dence reposed in him. He must always serve with competence and diligence, and
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. An attorney should endeavor to keep his
client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the
latter's request for information. Failure to comply with these abiding precepts of ethical
conduct renders counsel liable for violating the canons of his profession.
On July 20, 2000, an administrative complaint 1 was led by Marcial L. Abiero
charging respondent Atty. Bernardo G. Juanino with negligence in connection with a legal
matter entrusted to him. CIAHDT
It appears that complainant engaged the services of respondent of the law rm P.C.
Nolasco and Associates as counsel de parte in NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-00904-95.
2 On January 29, 1998, Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio ruled in favor of complainant by
ordering the respondents to pay complainant his unpaid wages and unpaid vacation leave
pay, to refund his plane fare and to pay moral damages and attorney's fees. 3
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the arbiter's decision
and dismissed the case for lack of basis. 4
For several times, complainant, either personally or through his designated agents,
tried to follow up the status of the case. Each time, respondent would advise him to call on
a later date at which time he may have some news of any development with the case. 5
Respondent led with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to le a
petition for review and paid the corresponding docket fee.
When complainant veri ed with the Court of Appeals the status of the case, he
found out that respondent never led a Petition for Review of his labor case. Consequently,
the NLRC decision became nal and executory. Thus, complainant led this administrative
complaint against respondent.
On August 30, 2000, respondent was required to le his comment within 10 days
from notice. 6 On September 25, 2000, respondent requested for additional time to le
comment. 7 Subsequently, respondent led a series of motions for extension to le
comment. On February 28, 2001, respondent was warned that no further extension shall be
granted. 8 Notwithstanding, and despite 11 extensions, respondent still failed to le his
comment. ICTacD
Consequently, on July 29, 2002, respondent was required to show cause why he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with our
directives. 9
On September 2, 2002, respondent led his Compliance with Motion for Final
Twelve (12) Day Extension With No Further Extension. 10
Finally, on September 17, 2002, respondent led his comment 11 together with a
Motion to Admit Comment Filed One Day Late. HaTAEc
The lone issue for resolution is whether respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. CDAcIT
The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of
the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the
pursuit or defense of the case. 18 By his own admission, respondent entertained the idea
of filing a motion for execution, thus:
I honestly believed then that since the other respondents did not appeal the
Decision to the Commission of the NLRC, I could enforce the Decision (See THIRD
REASON) against these other respondents who did not appeal. So undersigned
went to Honorable Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio and explained to him about
my plan to le a Motion for Execution against the other respondents who did not
appeal the Decision to the Commission of the NLRC. I was not able to see him the
rst two times that I went as I was informed he was assigned to certain task force
and when I saw him the third time, Honorable Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio
informed me that since decision was reversed on appeal and the complaint
dismissed, there would be no basis for ling a Motion for Execution to enforce
Decision. I was dumbfounded as the period to le a Petition for Certiorari already
expired. 19
As a lawyer, respondent should know that he is not required to seek prior approval
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
from the labor arbiter before he could le a motion for execution. Notwithstanding, he
presented himself, not once, but thrice, before the o ce of the arbiter to discuss his plan
to le a motion for execution, only to discover that such recourse was not feasible. Worse,
while respondent was waiting for the arbiter's opinion, the period to le the petition before
the Court of Appeals continued to run, as in fact, it eventually expired.
Failure to appeal to the Court of Appeals despite instructions by the client to do so
constitutes inexcusable negligence on the part of counsel. Once a lawyer consents to
defend the cause of his client, he owes delity to such cause and must at all times be
mindful of the trust and con dence reposed in him. He is bound to protect his client's
interest to the best of his ability and perform his duties to his client with utmost diligence.
Nothing less can be expected from a member of the Philippine Bar. For having neglected a
legal matter entrusted to him by his client, respondent did not serve his client with
diligence and competence. His inexcusable negligence on such matter renders him liable
for violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 20 llcd
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 1.
2. Marcial O. Abiero v. Diamond-H Marine Services and Shipping Agency, Inc., et al.
3. Rollo, p. 48.
4. Id., p. 65.
5. Id., p. 1.
6. Id., p. 67.
7. Id., p. 68.
8. Id., p. 85.
9. Id., p. 145.
10. Id., p. 147.
11. Id., pp. 150-154.
12. Id., p. 163.
13. Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, pp. 2-5. IBP Investigating Commissioner is Milagros V. San Juan.
20. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 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." Canon 18 states that "[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence." Specifically, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 provides that "[a] lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable."
21. A.C. No. 5092, 11 August 2004, p. 4.
22. Id.
23. G.R. No. 94457, 10 June 1992, 209 SCRA 722, 730-731.
24. Id.
25. A.C. No. 6297, 13 July 2004, p. 7.
26. A.C. No. 2473, 3 February 1993, 218 SCRA 381, 384.
27. 348 Phil. 776, 784 (1998).
28. Reyes v. Atty. Javier, 426 Phil. 243, 248 (2002).