View full case

CARLITO P. CARANDANG v. ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA

FACTS:

The complaint was filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina, who had served as Carandang's counsel in a previous civil case. Carandang alleged that Atty. Obmina failed to inform him of the adverse decision and did not file an appeal. Carandang only found out about the decision six months later when his daughter visited the RTC. When confronted, Atty. Obmina allegedly claimed that Carandang couldn't afford to pay for an appeal. Carandang sought assistance from Malacanang but was informed that it was already too late to appeal. He then submitted a letter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to initiate the complaint. Atty. Obmina had retired from the practice of law in the United States, and his daughter, Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. Obmina-Muaña, appeared on his behalf and requested extraterritorial service of summons. The case went through several hearings and conferences, during which both parties were given opportunities to submit their position papers.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Atty. Gilbert Obmina violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether or not Atty. Obmina should be suspended from the practice of law for his negligence.

  3. Whether Atty. Obmina had a duty to notify Carandang of the trial court's adverse decision in Civil Case No. B-5109.

  4. Whether Atty. Obmina's failure to notify Carandang of the adverse decision constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Obmina violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He failed to serve his client with competence and diligence, neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, and did not keep his client informed of the status of his case. As a result of his negligence, the client lost the case and was evicted.

  2. Atty. Obmina is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

  3. Atty. Obmina had a duty to notify Carandang of the trial court's adverse decision in Civil Case No. B-5109. The court found that there is no evidence on record that Atty. Obmina took the initiative to inform Carandang of the decision. Instead, Carandang learned about the decision through a chance visit to the trial court. Atty. Obmina should have immediately contacted Carandang, explained the decision, and advised him on further steps that could be taken. Atty. Obmina's failure to fulfill this duty resulted in Carandang losing his right to file an appeal.

  4. Atty. Obmina's failure to notify Carandang of the adverse decision constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform the client of any important developments affecting the client's case. Keeping the client informed of the developments will minimize misunderstandings and loss of trust in the lawyer. Atty. Obmina's failure to fulfill this duty is a violation of Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence, and to keep them informed of the status of their case.

  • Lawyers should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and their negligence in connection therewith renders them liable.

  • Lawyers must inform their clients of any information they acquire that may be important for the client to know.

  • Failure to notify the client and negligence in handling a case may lead to disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law.

  • An attorney has a duty to inform the client of any information that is important for the client to know.

  • The lawyer-client relationship is one of confidence, and there is a need for the lawyer to timely and adequately inform the client of important developments in the case.

  • An attorney's failure to keep the client informed may result in disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law.