View full case

ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. ATTY. WILFREDO OCA

FACTS:

The complainant, Artemio Endaya, filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Wifredo Oca for violating the lawyer's oath and professional delinquency. The case originated from a complaint for unlawful detainer filed against the complainant and his spouse by Apolonia H. Hornilla and others. The complainant initially prepared their own answer but later sought the services of the Public Attorney's Office where the respondent was assigned to handle the case.

During the preliminary conference, the complainant admitted that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land involved in the case. The court ordered the parties to submit their affidavits and position papers, but the respondent failed to do so. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint. However, it was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) where the complainant hired another lawyer.

The RTC reversed the dismissal and ordered the defendants to vacate and dismantle their house on the land, pay rentals in arrears, and attorney's fees. The complainant confronted the respondent, who denied receiving a copy of the decision. However, upon inquiry with the Branch Clerk of Court, the complainant discovered that the respondent had indeed received his copy of the decision.

Due to the alleged inaction of the respondent, the complainant filed an administrative complaint against him for professional delinquency. The respondent denies the allegations of professional misconduct, stating that he was not the original counsel of the complainant and his spouse. He claims that he agreed to represent them solely for the purpose of asking the court for permission to file an amended answer. However, he immediately requested to be relieved as counsel upon discovering that the answer was prepared by another lawyer, but his request was denied.

The respondent also claims that he did not file a position paper or memorandum on appeal because the complainant failed to provide him with the necessary supporting documents. He admits receiving a resolution requiring him to file a rejoinder but purposely did not do so, believing it was no longer necessary. The Office of the Bar Confidant found the respondent negligent in handling the case and recommended a one-month suspension from the practice of law. The complainant was also found at fault for misrepresenting that he could prove his claim with supporting documents. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further investigation and recommendation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent violated his duty to protect and safeguard the interest of his client.

  2. Whether or not the respondent demonstrated the required diligence in handling the case of complainant and his spouse.

  3. Whether or not the respondent's failure to file the required pleadings constitutes negligence and malpractice.

  4. Whether respondent's failure to file the required pleadings with the MCTC and the RTC constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. Whether respondent's failure to inform the RTC of his intent not to file the appeal memorandum constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  6. Whether respondent's denial of knowledge of the RTC decision despite his receipt thereof constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  7. Whether respondent's employment as a lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office affects the determination of the penalty to be imposed.

  8. Whether the respondent lawyer failed to fulfill his duties as counsel in the unlawful detainer case.

  9. Whether the respondent's conduct warrants disciplinary action.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled in the affirmative for all the issues raised.

  2. Yes, respondent's failure to file the required pleadings with the MCTC and the RTC constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His neglect in connection therewith rendered him liable under Rule 18.03, which prohibits lawyers from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to them.

  3. Yes, respondent's failure to inform the RTC of his intent not to file the appeal memorandum constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He violated Canon 12, which requires lawyers to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

  4. Yes, respondent's denial of knowledge of the RTC decision despite his receipt thereof constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He breached the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client, in violation of Canon 17.

  5. Respondent's employment as a lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office does not exempt him from observing the degree of diligence required in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 6 provides that the canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.

  6. The respondent lawyer's failure to fulfill his duties as counsel in the unlawful detainer case, in violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warrants his suspension from the practice of law. The respondent did not submit the required affidavits and position paper, did not file an appeal memorandum, failed to inform his clients of the adverse decision, and did not file a rejoinder to the complainant's reply. Respondent's conduct reflects his indifference to his clients' cause, lack of respect for the courts, and disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Considering some mitigating factors and the heavy caseload of the Public Attorney's Office, the court imposes a two-month suspension from the practice of law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer is bound by the negligence of his lawyer, and a client is bound by the negligence of his lawyer. (Diaz-Duarte vs. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)

  • A party cannot blame his counsel for negligence when he himself was guilty of neglect. (Macapagal vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 491)

  • The lawyer's oath requires a lawyer to conduct himself "to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients." (Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. (Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • Once a lawyer takes a client's cause, he owes it to his client to see the case to the end. (Legarda v. Court of Appeals)

  • Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts if for a fee or for free. (Santiago v. Fojas)

  • A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated either by the act of his client or his own act, with permission of the court. Until such time, the lawyer is expected to do his best for the interest of his client.

  • Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to them.

  • Canon 19 prescribes that lawyers should represent their clients with zeal within the bounds of the law and exert all efforts to avail of remedies allowed under the law.

  • Canon 12 requires lawyers to exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

  • Canon 17 mandates that lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them.

  • Lawyers in government service, including the Public Attorney's Office, are not exempt from observing the degree of diligence required in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers have a duty to represent their clients with zeal and diligence, and to act in a manner consistent with the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Failure to fulfill these duties may warrant disciplinary action, such as suspension from the practice of law.