8/12/2019 Canoy vs Ortiz Full Case

1/3

ELMER CANOY,Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ,Respondent.

There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigationwithout even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account ofwhat might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty

Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason to deviate from the norm in this case.

A Complaint1dated 10 April 001 was filed with the !ffice of the "ar #onfidant by $lmer #anoy %#anoy& accusing Atty'ose (a) !rti* %Atty. !rti*& of misconduct and malpractice. +t was alleged that #anoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissalagainst his former employer, #oca #ola "ottlers hilippines. The complaint was filed with the -ational abor /elations#ommission %-/#& /egional Arbitration "oard + in "acolod #ity. Atty. !rti* appeared as counsel for #anoy in thisproceeding. +n 12, the labor arbiter hearing the complaint ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers#anoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. !rti* for the preparation of the position paperThereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. !rti* to follow3up the progress of the case. After a finavisit at the office of Atty. !rti* in April of 000, during which #anoy was told to come back as his lawyer was not present,#anoy decided to follow3up the case himself with the -/#. 4e was shocked to learn that his complaint was actuallydismissed way back in 12, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position papers. 5The dismissa

was without prejudice. #anoy alleged that Atty. !rti* had never communicated to him about the status of the case, much

less the fact that he failed to submit the position paper.

The Comment6filed by Atty. !rti* is the epitome of self3hagiography. 4e informs the #ourt that since commencing his lawpractice in 127, he has mostly catered to indigent and low3income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himselfAtty. !rti* claims that for more than ten years, his law office was a virtual adjunct of the ublic Attorney8s !ffice with itssteady stream of non3paying clients in the 9hundreds or thousands.9:At the same time, he hosted a legal assistance showon the radio, catering to far3flung municipalities and reaching 9the people who need legal advice and assistance.9 ;Atty!rti* pursued on with this lifestyle until his election as #ouncilor of "acolod #ity, a victory which he generously attributesto the help 9of the same people whom he had helped by way of legal assistance before.97

#anoy was among those low3income clients whom Atty. !rti* deigned to represent. The lawyer was apparently confidenthat the illegal dismissal case would eventually be resolved by way of compromise. 4e claims having prepared theposition paper of #anoy, but before he could submit the same, the abor Arbiter had already issued the order dismissing

the case.2Atty. !rti* admits though that the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. 4e attributesthis failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as #ouncilor of "acolod #ity, 9he was franklypreoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer.9 $ventually, 9his desire tohelp was beyond physical limitations,9 and he withdrew from his other cases and his 9free legal services.9

According to Atty. !rti*, 9(r. #anoy should have at least understood that during all that time, he was free to visit or callthe office and be entertained by the secretary as

8/12/2019 Canoy vs Ortiz Full Case

2/3

The #ourt is sensitive to the difficulties in obtaining legal representation for indigent or low3income litigants. Apart from theheroic efforts of government entities such as the ublic Attorney8s !ffice, groups such as the +" -ational #ommittee onegal Aid and the !ffice of egal Aid of the @ #ollege of aw have likewise been at the forefront in the >uest to providelegal representation for those who could not otherwise afford the services of lawyers. The efforts of private practitioners

who assist in this goal are especially commendable, owing to their sacrifice in time and resources beyond the call of dutyand without e)pectation of pecuniary reward.

et, the problem of under3representation of indigent or low3income clients is just as grievous as that of non3representation. Admirable as the apparent focus of Atty. !rti*8s legal practice may have been, his particular representation

of #anoy in the latter8s illegal dismissal case leaves much to be desired.

Several of the canons and rules in the #ode of rofessional /esponsibility guard against the sort of conduct displayed byAtty. !rti* with respect to the handling of #anoy8s case.

#A-!- 17A AB$/ !B$S C+?$+T T! T4$ #A@S$ !C 4+S #+$-T A-? 4$ S4A "$ (+-?C@ !CT4$ T/@ST A-? #!-C+?$-#$ /$!S$? +- 4+(.

#A-!- 12A AB$/ S4A S$/$ 4+S #+$-T B+T4 #!($T$-#$ A-? ?++D$-#$.

. . .

/ule 12.05A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewithshall render him liable.

/ule 12.06A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within areasonable time to the client8s re>uest for information.

. . .

#A-!- A AB$/ S4A B+T4?/AB 4+S S$/+#$S !- C!/ D!!? #A@S$ A-? @!- -!T+#$A/!/+AT$ +- T4$ #+/#@(STA-#$S.

. . .

/ule .0A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over alpapers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer ofthe matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

Atty. !rti* should have filed the position paper on time, owing to his duty as counsel of #anoy to attend to this legal matterentrusted to him. 4is failure to do so constitutes a violation of /ule 12.05 of the #ode of rofessional /esponsibility.

!nce he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindfuof the trust and confidence reposed in him. 4e must serve the client with competence and diligence and championthe latter8s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. $lsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to theinterest of the client, warm *eal in the maintenance and defense of his client8s rights, and the e)ertion of hisutmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law

legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defensethat is authori*ed by the law of the land and he may e)pect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. +much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it thecorrelative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer who performshis duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his clientE he also serves the ends of justicedoes honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. 1;

+f indeed Atty. !rti*8s schedule, workload, or physical condition was such that he would not be able to make a timely filing,he should have informed #anoy of such fact. The relationship of lawyer3client being one of confidence, there is everpresent the need for the client to be ade>uately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be lefin the dark as to the mode and manner in which hisFher interests are being defended.17

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt17

8/12/2019 Canoy vs Ortiz Full Case

3/3

There could have been remedies undertaken to this inability of Atty. !rti* to file on time the position paper had #anoybeen told of such fact, such as a re>uest for more time to file the position paper, or maybe even the hiring of collaboratingcounsel or substitution of Atty. !rti* as counsel. Since Atty. !rti* did not e)ercise the necessary degree of care by eitherfiling the position paper on time or informing #anoy that the paper could not be submitted seasonably, the ignominy ofhaving the complaint dismissed for failure to prosecute could not be avoided.

That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing #anoy to refile the case, hardly serves to mitigate theliability of Atty. !rti*, as the failure to file the position paper isper sea violation of /ule 12.05.12

-either is the #ourt mollified by the circumstance of Atty. !rti*8s election as a #ity #ouncilor of "acolod #ity, as hisadoption of these additional duties does not e)onerate him of his negligent behavior. The #ode of rofessiona/esponsibility does allow a lawyer to withdraw his legal services if the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office. 1

Statutes e)pressly prohibit the occupant of particular public offices from engaging in the practice of law, such asgovernors and mayors,0and in such instance, the attorney3client relationship is terminated.14owever, city councilors areallowed to practice their profession or engage in any occupation e)cept during session hours, and in the case of lawyerssuch as Atty. !rti*, subject to certain prohibitions which are not relevant to this case. +n such case, the lawyernevertheless has the choice to withdraw hisFher services.5Still, the severance of the relation of attorney3client is noteffective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court ortribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then, the lawyer continues to be counsel in thecase.6

Assuming that Atty. !rti* was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in

the cold unprotected.:+ndeed, /ule .0 re>uires that a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien,immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in theorderly transfer of the matter. Atty. !rti* claims that the reason why he took no further action on the case was that he wasinformed that #anoy had ac>uired the services of another counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no apparencoordination between Atty. !rti* and this new counsel.

+n fact, it took nearly two years before #anoy had learned that the position paper had not been filed and that the case hadbeen dismissed. This was highly irresponsible of Atty. !rti*, much more so considering that #anoy was one of theindigent clients whom Atty. !rti* proudly claims as his favored clientele. +t does not escape the #ourt8s attention that Atty!rti* faults #anoy for not ade>uately following up the case with his office. ;4e cannot now shift the blame to complainantfor failing to in>uire about the status of the case, since, as stated above, it was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients ofthe status of cases entrusted to him.7

The appropriate sanction is within the sound discretion of this #ourt. +n cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the#ourt consisted of either a reprimand, a fine of five hundred pesos with warning, suspension of three months, si) monthsand even disbarment in aggravated cases.2Diven the circumstances, the #ourt finds the penalty recommended by the+" too lenient and instead suspends Atty. !rti* from the practice of law for one %1& month. The graver penalty ofsuspension is warranted in lieu of an admonition or a reprimand considering that Atty. !rti*8s undisputed negligence infailing to timely file the position paper was compounded by his failure to inform #anoy of such fact, and the successivedismissal of the complaint.

awyers who devote their professional practice in representing litigants who could ill afford legal services deservecommendation. 4owever, this mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how well3meaning, from theconse>uences of negligent acts. +t is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation.They deserve >uality representation as well.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. 'ose (a) S. !rti* is ordered S@S$-?$? from the practice of law for one %1& monthfrom notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with more severely. et a copy of thisdecision be attached to respondent8s personal record in the !ffice of the "ar #onfidant and copies be furnished to alchapters of the +ntegrated "ar of the hilippines and to all the courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html#fnt28