AC No 9387 June 20 2012

Emilia R. Hernandez vs Atty Venancio B.
Padilla AC No 9387 June 20, 2012
FACTS:
Complainant and her husband were respondents in an ejectment case filed against them with the RTC of Manila.
The Judge of the RTC ordered that a Deed of Sale executed in favor of the complainant be cancelled and that they
pay the other party (Elisa Duigan) damages.
Complainant and husband filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC and later were ordered by the CA to file their
Appellant’s Brief.
Respondent, their chosen lawyer, filed a Memorandum of Appeal instead of an Appellant’s Brief. Thus, the other
party (Daguian) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal which the CA granted on December 16, 2003.
No Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dismissing the appeal was filed by the couple. They were not
informed of the decision by their lawyer despite asking “several times” about the status of the appeal.
Complainant claims that Respondent ignored the Resolution acting with “deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to
malpractice of the law”
The Resolution became final and executory on January 8, 2004. Complainant was only informed sometime in July
2005 when the Sherrif of the RTC came to her house and informed her of the Resolution.
In an Answer to the CBD-IBP, respondent explained that he was not the lawyer of complainant and that he had
never met her, only her husband who personally transacted with him.
According to respondent, the husband "despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal

because according to him the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or three days." Thus, respondent
claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed that "it is this pleading which was
required."
Before filing the Memorandum, respondent advised complainant's husband to settle the case. The latter allegedly
"gestured approval of the advice”.
After the husband of complainant picked up the Memorandum for filing, respondent never saw or heard from him
again and thus assumed that the husband heeded his advice and settled the case. When respondent received an
Order from the CA requiring him to file a comment on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Duigan, he "instructed his
office staff to contact Mr. Hernandez thru available means of communication, but to no avail.
Thus, when complainant's husband went to the office of respondent to tell the latter that the Sheriff of the RTC
had informed complainant of the CA's Resolution dismissing the case, respondent was just as surprised. The lawyer
exclaimed, "KALA KO BA NAKIPAG AREGLO NA KAYO."
IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Respondent violated Canons 5,17,18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and that he should be suspended from the practice of law for 3-6 months.
IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of the Commissioner and recommended 6 months suspension from
the practice of law. Upon MR requesting relaxation on the application of the Canons, the penalty was reduced to
one month suspension
 Respondent claimed that the reason for his failure to file the proper pleading was that he "did not have
enough time to acquaint himself thoroughly with the factual milieu of the case."
ISSUES:
 WON there was an attorney-client relationship between parties of the present case
 WON respondent lawyer should be disbarred for his negligence to avail of the proper remedies for
complainant.
RULING : Reversed and affirmed 6-month suspension
RATIO
1. Respondent insists that he had never met complainant prior to the mandatory conference set for the disbarment
Complaint she filed against him. However, a perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court
revealed that he had signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants therein, including complainant and her
husband
2. Respondent claims there is no lawyer-client relationship.

 Complainant pointed that respondent was her lawyer, because he accepted her case and an acceptance
fee in the amount of P7,000.
 According to respondent, however, “the fee was only for the preparation of the pleading which is even
low for a Memorandum of Appeal: . . . ." and that he honestly believed that was the document required
based on what the complainant’s husband told him.
 SC: Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve
the client with competence and diligence. Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty.

3. Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it was respondent's duty to
know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions
When the RTC ruled against complainant and her husband, they filed a Notice of Appeal. Consequently, what
should apply is the rule on ordinary appealed cases or Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Respondent, as a
litigator, was expected to know this procedure as per Canon 5
4. Respondent's plea for leniency should not have been granted.
The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his
negligence.
Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. If
respondent lawyer felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was
approached by complainant's husband only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellant's
Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading.
5. Moreover, respondent does not deny that he was given notice of the fact that he filed the wrong pleading.
However, instead of explaining his side by filing a comment, as ordered by the appellate court, he chose to ignore
the CA's Order. He claims that he was under the presumption that complainant and her husband had already
settled the case,
First of all, there were several remedies that respondent could have availed himself of, from the moment he
received the Notice from the CA to the moment he received the disbarment Complaint filed against him.
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so
amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code.
If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, the least respondent could have done was to
inform the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. He could have thus explained why he was
no longer the counsel of complainant and her husband in the case and informed the court that he could no longer
contact them. 28 His failure to take this measure proves his negligence.
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigan's Motion to Dismiss is
negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client's case.
Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty
would render them liable for disciplinary action.

AC No 9387 June 20 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AC No 9387 June 20 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emilia R. Hernandez vs Atty Venancio B.

Padilla AC No 9387 June 20, 2012

According to respondent, the husband "despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal

RULING : Reversed and affirmed 6-month suspension

2. Respondent claims there is no lawyer-client relationship.

4. Respondent's plea for leniency should not have been granted.

You might also like