Abiero v. Juanino A.C. No.

5302 1 of 4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 5302 February 18, 2005
MARCIAL L. ABIERO, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. BERNARDO G. JUANINO, respondent.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client at all times, mindful of the trust and confidence 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
latters 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 was filed by Marcial L. Abiero charging respondent Atty. Bernardo
G. Juanino with negligence in connection with a legal matter entrusted to him.
It appears that complainant engaged the services of respondent of the law firm P.C. Nolasco and Associates as
counsel de parte in NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-00904-95. 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 attorneys fees.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the arbiters decision and dismissed the case for
lack of basis.
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.
Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review and paid the
corresponding docket fee.
When complainant verified with the Court of Appeals the status of the case, he found out that respondent never
filed a Petition for Review of his labor case. Consequently, the NLRC decision became final and executory. Thus,
complainant filed this administrative complaint against respondent.
On August 30, 2000, respondent was required to file his comment within 10 days from notice. On September 25,
2000, respondent requested for additional time to file comment. Subsequently, respondent filed a series of motions
for extension to file comment. On February 28, 2001, respondent was warned that no further extension shall be
granted. Notwithstanding, and despite 11 extensions, respondent still failed to file his comment.
Consequently, on July 29, 2002, respondent was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt
with or held in contempt for failure to comply with our directives.
On September 2, 2002, respondent filed his Compliance with Motion for Final Twelve (12) Day Extension With No
Abiero v. Juanino A.C. No. 5302 2 of 4

Further Extension.
Finally, on September 17, 2002, respondent filed his comment together with a Motion to Admit Comment Filed
One Day Late.
In a Resolution dated October 21, 2002, respondents Motion to Admit Comment Filed One Day Late was referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.
As summarized, respondent alleged by way of defense, the following:
(1) that complainant became respondents client after respondent handled these cases for complainants uncle
Aniceto Encio and his family namely Criminal Case No. F-10088, POEA Case No. M-91-06-602, I.S. No. 93 E-
17909 and POEA Case No. L-93-04-610; that respondent successfully handled these cases which led to the
dismissal of the criminal case against Aniceto Encio and recovery of monetary awards in the other cases; (2) that
NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-00904-95 was referred by Aniceto Encio to respondent for handling; that herein
complainant and Aniceto Encio requested respondent not to charge them an acceptance fee for said case and
instead offered to pay respondent 30% of any monetary award recovered in said case; that on appeal to the
National Labor Relations Commission, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Carpio was reversed and NLRC OCW Case
No. 00-12-00904-95 was dismissed by the NLRC for lack of merit; (4) that at the time respondent advanced the
docket fees, complainant and respondent did not have any agreement that a Petition for Certiorari would be filed
with the Court of Appeals; (5) that weeks later, when complainant reimbursed respondent for the docket fees he
had advanced, respondent advised complainant and his uncle that respondent intended to appeal the Decision of the
NLRC to the Court of Appeals and so he filed a Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition ; (7) that there
was an error in judgment on respondents part when instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari as originally intended,
respondent chose to pursue another course of action, that of entertaining the idea of filing a Motion for Execution
to enforce the Labor Arbiters Decision against the other respondents who did not appeal said Decision; (8) that
respondent pleads good faith in the subsequent course of action taken; that respondent entertained the idea that he
could enforce the original Decision through a Motion for Execution; (9) that respondent tried his best to win
complainants labor case and in fact, he won it at the Labor Arbiters level; (10) that respondent appeals to the
sense of fairness of complainant; that in the 4 cases respondent handled for complainant and his uncle, respondent
won 3 cases for them especially the criminal complaint for Homicide against complainants uncle; that in said
criminal case, respondent did not charge a single centavo for attorneys fees.
In his letter-reply filed on February 7, 2003, complainant averred the following statements originally in the
vernacular:
it is not true that there was no acceptance fee because complainant paid respondent the amount of P1,500 plus
the amount of P500 per hearing but no receipts were issued for these payments; that there is no truth to
respondents allegation that complainant was in the province because complainants uncle called respondent 3
times a week to follow-up the Petition for Review; that it was actually complainant who paid for the docket fees
but respondent who physically paid the same to the Court of Appeals; and that respondent made several promises
to complainants uncle regarding the status of the Petition for Review but nothing came out of said promises.
The lone issue for resolution is whether respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
In its Report and Recommendation, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), held that there was no sufficient justification for respondents failure to file the petition for review with the
Court of Appeals. It found that respondent was aware of the period for filing said petition because he himself paid
Abiero v. Juanino A.C. No. 5302 3 of 4

the docket fees and filed the Motion for Extension of Time to File the Petition for Review. His claim that he was
pursuing another legal remedy in the labor case did not justify his failure to file the petition for review within the
prescribed period. Complainant had placed his trust in respondent to handle his claims against his previous
employer. Failure to comply with his legal duty as counsel of complainant in NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-
00904-95 has caused damage and prejudice to the latter. Thus, in failing to file the petition for review, respondent
was held to have breached Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Commission on Bar
Discipline of IBP recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, adopted the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
and the applicable laws and rules, and considering respondents violation of Canons 17 & 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by failing to file the Petition for Certiorari, Atty. Bernardo G. Juanino is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
We agree with the findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner.
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. 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 file 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 first 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 filing a Motion for
Execution to enforce Decision. I was dumbfounded as the period to file a Petition for Certiorari already expired.
As a lawyer, respondent should know that he is not required to seek prior approval from the labor arbiter before he
could file a motion for execution. Notwithstanding, he presented himself, not once, but thrice, before the office of
the arbiter to discuss his plan to file a motion for execution, only to discover that such recourse was not feasible.
Worse, while respondent was waiting for the arbiters opinion, the period to file 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 fidelity to such
cause and must at all times be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He is bound to protect his
clients 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.
As we held in the recent case of Barbuco v. Atty. Beltran, an attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the
Abiero v. Juanino A.C. No. 5302 4 of 4

best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Thus, failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence on his part, especially if such failure took the form of filing a pleading after the deadline for
filing the same has passed. Respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in judgment in failing to perform his
professional duty to his client under the canons of his profession.
The failure to timely file a pleading is by itself a sin of omission on the part of the respondent. However,
complainants travails were further compounded by the failure of the respondent to maintain an open line of
communication with his client in direct contravention of Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires a lawyer to keep his client informed of the status of his case and respond within a
reasonable time to the clients request for information.
In Legarda v. Court of Appeals, counsels failure to exercise due diligence in protecting the interest of his client
caused the latter material prejudice. The moment counsel takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exert all
effort for its prosecution until its final resolution.A lawyer who fails to exercise due diligence or abandons his
clients cause makes him unworthy of the trust reposed on him by the latter; he owes fealty, not only to his client,
but also to the Court of which he is an officer.
We observed in Parias v. Atty. Paguinto that a lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his clients
case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty,
he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer should accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle
in order to sufficiently protect his clients interests. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to
handle the legal matter; he must also give adequate attention to his legal work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once
counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his clients cause.
In Barbuco v. Atty. Beltran, Guiang v. Atty. Antonio, and Sps. Villaluz v. Judge Armenta, the Court suspended
counsel for six months upon a finding that their failure to perfect an appeal was inexcusable and persuasively
demonstrative of negligence and malpractice, a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which declares that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable."
We cannot overstate the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. He
can do this by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.
Incidentally, we note that respondent delayed the filing of the comment for more than two (2) years. Despite
numerous extensions, which were all granted, still, he filed the comment one (1) day late. By neglecting his duties
to his client and to this Court, respondent transgressed the canons of legal ethics enshrined in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Such misconduct should not be countenanced.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Bernardo G. Juanino is found guilty of negligence and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and all courts in the Philippines, for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.