Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Adarne VS Aldaba

    Uploaded by

    Shang Romblon
    379 views1 page
    Complainant Cesario Adarne filed a disbarment complaint against attorney Damian Aldaba for negligence that caused Adarne to lose a civil case. Aldaba had made special appearances in the case on behalf of Adarne when his other lawyers were absent. The Supreme Court ruled that the default judgment against Adarne could not be attributed to Aldaba, as Adarne had engaged multiple lawyers without formally withdrawing authority from the others. The burden of proof in disbarment cases rests with the complainant. There was no convincing proof that warranted Aldaba's disbarment, so the complaint was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ADARNE VS ALDABA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Complainant Cesario Adarne filed a disbarment complaint against attorney Damian Aldaba for negligence that caused Adarne to lose a civil case. Aldaba had made special appearances in the case on behalf of Adarne when his other lawyers were absent. The Supreme Court ruled that the default judgment against Adarne could not be attributed to Aldaba, as Adarne had engaged multiple lawyers without formally withdrawing authority from the others. The burden of proof in disbarment cases rests with the complainant. There was no convincing proof that warranted Aldaba's disbarment, so the complaint was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    379 views1 page

    Adarne VS Aldaba

    Uploaded by

    Shang Romblon
    Complainant Cesario Adarne filed a disbarment complaint against attorney Damian Aldaba for negligence that caused Adarne to lose a civil case. Aldaba had made special appearances in the case on behalf of Adarne when his other lawyers were absent. The Supreme Court ruled that the default judgment against Adarne could not be attributed to Aldaba, as Adarne had engaged multiple lawyers without formally withdrawing authority from the others. The burden of proof in disbarment cases rests with the complainant. There was no convincing proof that warranted Aldaba's disbarment, so the complaint was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ADARNE VS ALDABA.A.C. NO. 801. JUNE 27, 1978.

    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”.

    ISSUE: Should Atty. Aldaba be disbarred?

    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.

    You might also like