Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Canon 18: A Lawyer Shall Serve His Client With Competence and Diligence
Canon 18: A Lawyer Shall Serve His Client With Competence and Diligence
Facts:
Blaza and Geruela were convicted of the crime of robbery
On appeal, the CA dismissed the appeal of the appellants
It appears that:
Despite the fact that the CA granted the counsel de parte of the appellants
3 extensions to file the appellants brief, the counsel still failed to do so
1st extension was grounded on the alleged heavy pressure of work in the
law office
2nd extension was grounded on the allegation that the counsel had to go
to a convention and that the brief was still undergoing final revisions
3rd extension was grounded on the allegation that the brief could not be
finished because the counsel did not have copies of the transcripts of
stenographic notes and prayed that copies be sent to the trial court
Ruling:
The petitioners are not entitled to relief and that they are bound
by their counsel's acts
The failure of their counselde parteto file brief in their behalf is
inexcusable. He did not adopt "the norm of practice expected of
men of good intentions.
There is no satisfactory showing that no such copy of the
transcript had in truth been retained in the lower court. The
presumption is that "official duty has been regularly performed."
Despite the resolution denying the plea, the counsel did nothing
Facts:
Gonzales and Cajes were convicted of the crime of less
physical injuries
On appeal, the RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the
MTCC
It appears that:
They were ordered to submit their counter-affidavits and of their
witnesses and that they were notified that the case would be
tried under the Rule on Summary Procedure
The counsel of the petitioners did not submit the affidavits but
participated in the cross-examination of the prosecutions
witnesses.
When the prosecution rested its case, they moved that the case
be deemed submitted for decision since the defense failed to
submit the affidavits
The motion was opposed by the defense and the trial court
set the case for the reception of evidence for the defense
on November 18, 1985
However, the counsel for defense failed to appear on the
said date and likewise failed to submit the affidavits
(Allegedly, due to death of the counsels father)
The prosecution, reiterated their motion, which was finally
granted
Ruling:
There is no jurisdictional error or abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondent courts. The trial court even gave them a chance to submit
the affidavits despite their initial failure to do so.
The Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 14 expressly prohibits any
witness from testifying during trial without previously submitting his
affidavit
While defense counsel may have had a valid reason to ask for a
resetting of the hearing, the court was never formally notified thereof
It would be too much to charge the court of judicial notice of counsel's
personal circumstance.
Took too much for granted, in the process forfeiting his clients'
opportunities to present evidence in their own behalf.
He vainly tried to shift to the trial court the blame for the
prejudice caused thereby to his clients.