Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adarne VS Aldaba
Adarne VS Aldaba
83 SCRA 734
FACTS:
Complainant Cesario Adarne were the defendants in an action for forcible entry filed by
plaintiffs Spouses Cumpion in the Justice of the Peace of Alangalang, Leyte. He was first
represented by Atty. Isauro Marmita (first lawyer) who raised the issue of ownership of the land
in question. It was dismissed but upon appeal to Court of First Instance (CFI) Leyte, it was
remanded to the lower court. It was again dismised. Again, plaintiffs appealed to CFI Leyte. This
time, complainant was represented by Atty. Mirales and Casimpan (2nd and 3rd lawyer). At the
hearing of the case on Aug 7, 1961, the said lawyers were absent so he asked her third degree
cousin, Atty. Damian Aldaba to make a SPECIAL APPEARANCE and moved for postponement
of trial and dismissal of case (the plaintiffs lawyers were also absent). Both motions were granted.
Plaintiffs appealed to CA where the said court remanded the case to CFI Leyte. Again, complainant
asked Atty. Aldaba to enter a “special appearance”. They asked if they could be allowed to file
action for quieting of title. However, during the hearing in June 17, 1965, complainant failed to
appear and plaintiffs presented evidence. CFI Leyte rendered decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
Aggrieved, complainant filed disbarment complaint against Atty. Aldaba for being negligent as
cousel which led him to lose in the civil case. Atty. Aldaba denied they have an agreement with
complainant to handle the case except for “special appearance”.
RULING: No. An attorney is not bound 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. Prone
to err like any other human being, he is not answerable for every error or mistake, and will be
protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the best of his skill and knowledge. In
disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and for the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent attorney must be established by
convincing proof. The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment by default rendered against
complainant cannot be attributed to respondent attorney as the blamed lies with the former for
having engaged the services of several lawyers to handle his case without formally withdrawing
the authority he had given them to appear in his behalf as to place the responsibility upon the
Respondent. Finding no convincing proof to warrant the disbarment of respondent attorney, the
administrative complaint filed against him was dismissed.