View full case

REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ v. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO

FACTS:

Complainant Reynaldo Ramirez engaged the services of Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo (Atty. Margallo) as his legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title. Ramirez alleged that Atty. Margallo had offered her services on the condition that she be given 30% of the land subject of the controversy instead of attorney's fees. It was also agreed that Ramirez would pay Atty. Margallo P1,000.00 per court appearance. The Regional Trial Court promulgated a decision adverse to Ramirez, and Atty. Margallo advised him to appeal the judgment. Ramirez notified Atty. Margallo and followed up on the Appellant's Brief, but he was repeatedly told that there was no word from the Court of Appeals. Atty. Margallo eventually informed Ramirez that his appeal had been denied due to his failure to establish his filiation with his alleged father. Ramirez discovered that the Appellant's Brief was filed beyond the reglementary period with a Motion for Reconsideration and Apologies. Ramirez filed a complaint against Atty. Margallo for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. After a mandatory conference, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended a penalty of reprimand. But after a motion for reconsideration filed by Ramirez, the Board of Governors increased the recommended penalty to a two-year suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Margallo filed a Petition for Review, but it was denied by the court for lack of merit.

ISSUES:

    • Whether or not the lawyer was remiss in her duties as legal counsel, violating Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    • Whether or not the lawyer's lack of communication and coordination with her client constitutes abandonment of her obligation as counsel.

  3. Whether the penalty of a two-year suspension from the practice of law is too severe for the lawyer's first infraction.

  4. Whether the lawyer's neglect and lack of diligence in handling a case justifies the imposition of a two-year suspension.

RULING:

  1. The Petition is denied for lack of merit. The lawyer was found to be unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal counsel, violating Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her lack of communication and coordination with her client constituted abandonment of her obligation as counsel.

  2. The position that a two-year suspension is too severe for a lawyer's first infraction cannot be sustained. Previous cases have established that lawyers guilty of gross negligence in similar circumstances have been suspended for a period of six months. The Court finds it proper to impose the same penalty against the respondent in this case.

  3. The lawyer's neglect and lack of diligence resulted in her client having no further recourse in court to protect his legal interests. This lack of diligence, to the utmost prejudice of the client, must not be tolerated. Lawyers must actively manage cases entrusted to them. The lawyer's negligence coupled with her lack of candor is reprehensible.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The relationship between a lawyer and a client is "imbued with utmost trust and confidence." Lawyers are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and competence in managing cases entrusted to them. They commit not only to review cases or give legal advice, but also to represent their clients to the best of their ability without need to be reminded by either the client or the court.

  • Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, and must serve his client with competence and diligence.

  • A lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.

  • A lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his/her duties subjects him/her to disciplinary action. Mere failure to perform the obligations due to a client is per se a violation, and a lawyer's lack of communication and coordination with a client can constitute abandonment of his/her obligation as counsel.

  • Lawyers should bear the full costs of indifference or negligence.

  • Lawyers must actively manage cases entrusted to them.

  • The court has the power to increase penalties in order to address a current need in the legal profession.

  • The Integrated Bar's recommended penalties are recommendatory and subject to the court's constitutional powers.