View full case

ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES v. ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA

FACTS:

Estela Anastacio-Briones filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta for abandonment and neglect of duties. Briones engaged the services of Zapanta to file three civil cases involving a parcel of land located in Antipolo City. Briones informed Zapanta of her joint venture agreement with a real estate developer and showed him a copy of a document she intended to file. Zapanta requested her not to file it and assured her that he would file a withdrawal of appearance instead. Briones also informed Zapanta that she could not attend a hearing on January 6, 2003, but Zapanta allegedly assured her that he would be present. However, both Zapanta and Briones failed to appear in the hearing, resulting in the court declaring them to have waived their right to present further witnesses. The court directed them to file their formal offer of evidence within ten days, but Zapanta did not act on it. Instead of filing a formal offer of evidence, Zapanta filed a withdrawal of appearance on March 5, 2003. As a result, the court dismissed the cases with prejudice. Briones later learned about the dismissal and that Zapanta did not attend the hearing or file a formal offer of evidence. Briones filed a complaint praying for Zapanta's disbarment for abandoning her case and withdrawing his appearance without her knowledge. Zapanta claimed that he was discharged as Briones' counsel, but he admitted not attending the hearing and not filing a formal offer of evidence. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Zapanta liable for negligence and recommended his suspension for three months. The Supreme Court sustained the findings and imposed the recommended penalty of suspension.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta is guilty of abandonment and neglect of duties as counsel for complainant Estela Anastacio-Briones.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds respondent Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties as counsel and violation of Canon 18 specifically Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three months is deemed appropriate.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the proper procedure for a lawyer's withdrawal as counsel in a case. Unless the prescribed procedure is complied with, the attorney of record remains the counsel who should be served with copies of judgments, orders, and pleadings.

  • Until a lawyer's withdrawal is approved and made of record, he remains counsel of record and is expected by his client and the court to do what the interests of his client require. The professional relationship between attorney and client does not formally terminate until there is a withdrawal of appearance on record.

  • An attorney has a duty to inform his client of the developments of the case. Failure to do so constitutes negligence.

  • The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts, and may range from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension, or disbarment. In this case, a three-month suspension is deemed appropriate.