View full case

EDUARDO T. ABAY v. ATTY. RAUL T. MONTESINO

FACTS:

The case involved a complaint against Atty. Raul T. Montesino filed by Eduardo T. Abay, accusing the former of gross negligence, gross incompetence, and evident bad faith. Abay claimed that Montesino, who was hired as counsel by the Negros Institute of Technology (NIT), failed to file an appellate court brief after the trial court dismissed their civil case. As a result, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal. Abay argued that Montesino abandoned the appeal without the NIT's knowledge and consent. Abay sought the disbarment of Montesino.

In response, Montesino claimed that during the pendency of the appeal, he discovered that the property being sought to be recovered by NIT had already been the subject of another case. He believed that pursuing the appeal would be futile, dilatory, and costly. He advised the NIT to file separate complaints against the parties involved in the other case. Montesino argued that he allowed the period to submit the appellant's brief to lapse because he believed it was in the best interest of the NIT.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The investigating commissioner found Montesino guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to justify his failure to file the brief. The commissioner recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Atty. Raul T. Montesino is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason.

  2. Whether or not Atty. Montesino should be sanctioned for his failure to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the appellant.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Atty. Raul T. Montesino is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason. He failed to justify his failure to file the brief despite requesting several extensions of time to do so. Moreover, he did not give due importance to his client's decision to continue with the appeal, suggesting his negligence and evident bad faith.

  2. Yes, Atty. Montesino should be sanctioned for his failure to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the appellant. Lawyers who disagree with the pursuit of an appeal should properly withdraw their appearance and allow their client to retain another counsel. By failing to do so, Atty. Montesino disregarded his ethical obligation to act in the best interest of his client.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have a duty to file proper pleadings and to pursue their client's case with reasonable diligence. Failure to do so, without any justifiable reason, constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers who disagree with their client's decision to pursue an appeal should properly withdraw their appearance, allowing the client to retain another counsel. This is to protect the client's right to be represented by counsel who will dutifully and competently pursue their case.