It is the lawyer’s duty to safeguard client’s interests. It begins from retainer until effective discharge from case or final disposition of the whole subject matter of litigation.
Suarez v. CA, 220 SCRA 274 (1993)
xxx xxx A client may reasonably expect that his counsel will make good his representations xxx xxx and has the right to expect that his lawyer will protect his interests during the trial of the case. For the general employment of an attorney to prosecute or defend a cause or proceeding ordinarily vests in a plaintiff’s attorney the implied authority to take all steps or do all acts necessary or incidental to the regular and orderly prosecution or management of the suit, and in a defendant’s attorney the power to take such steps as it deems necessary to defend the suit and protect the interests of the defendant xxx xxx.
Blaza vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 461
The legal profession demands a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family and should adopt “the norm of practice expected of men of good intentions.
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Islas vs. Platon, 47 Phil. 162
When a lawyer accepts a case, whether for a fee or not, his acceptance is an implied representation:
1. that he possess the requisite degree of academic learning, skill and ability in the practice of his profession;
2. that he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
3. that he will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case; and
4. that he will take steps as will adequately safeguard his client’s interests.
However well meaning he may be, a lawyer cannot ask another lawyer to collaborate with him in a particular case without the consent of the client. The fiduciary nature of attorney-client relationship prohibits this.
Garcia vs. Flores, 101 Phil. 781 (1951)
It should be stressed that what a lawyer may not delegate in the absence of he client’s consent is the confidence reposed in him, as distinguished from the work involved therein. A lawyer has the implied power to delegate to his associate or assistant attorney, under his supervision and responsibility, part or the whole of the legal work required to be performed in the prosecution or defense of the client’s cause.
Robinson vs. Villafuerte, 18 Phil. 121 (1911)
A lawyer may not, however, delegate to any layman any work which involves a study of the law or its application, such as the computation and determination of the period within which to appeal an adverse judgment, the examination of witnesses or the presentation of evidence.
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Bautista vs. Rebueno, 81 SCRA 535
A lawyer must keep himself constantly abreast with the trend of authoritative pronouncements and developments in all branches of the law.
Javellana vs. Lutero, 20 SCRA 717 (1967)
The full protection of the client’s interests requires no less than a mastery of the applicable law and facts involved in a case, regardless of the nature of the assignment and keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the law.
Legarda vs. CA, G. R. No. 94457, March 18, 1991
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so many cases he can handle. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less then he is not true to his oath as a lawyer.
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has been caused to his client, the latter has a cause of action against him for damages. However, for the lawyer to be held liable, his failure to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence must be proximate cause of the loss.
Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, 220 SCRA 274 (1993)
By agreeing to be his client’s counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefore, and his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.
Phil. Bank of Commerce vs. Aruego, C.A.-G.R. No. 28274, June 18, 1965
The legal profession is a jealous mistress which demands of a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family. A lawyer is required to exercise ordinary diligence or that a reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, as any member of the bar similarly situated commonly possesses and exercises.
Adarne vs. Aldaba, 83 SCRA 735
An attorney is not required to exercise extraordinary diligence but only a reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do.
In re: Filart, 40 Phil. 205
An attorney is not expected to know all the laws. He is not liable for disbarment for an honest mistake or error. He is not an insurer of the result in a case where he is engaged in as a counsel. Only ordinary care and diligence are required of him.
Lawell vs. Goroman, 57 Am. St., rep. 662
The degree of care and skill required of the lawyer is not affected however by the fact that the lawyer’s services are rendered gratuitously.
Vivero vs. Santos, 98 Phil. 500 (1956)
The client is bound by his counsel’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case, or in the management of the litigation and in the procedural technique, and he cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently.
Cruz vs. Hugo, 66 Phil. 102 (1938)
The rule presupposes the existence of an attorney-client relationship and of a pending case, and refers only to matters pertaining to the conduct of such case.
Visitacion vs. Manit, 27 SCRA 523 (1969)
The attorney’s duty to safeguard the client’s interests commences from his retainer until his defective release from the case or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation.
Instances of Negligence of Attorneys
1.
Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to answer a complaint resulting in a default judgment against his client (Mapua vs. Mendoza, 45 Phil. 424).2.
Failure to bring suit immediately. When the belated suit was filed, the defendant had already become insolvent and recovery could no longer be had. The lawyer was declared liable to the client (Filinvest Land vs. CA, 182 SCRA 664).3.
Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post office of notice of decision resulting in the non-perfection of the appellant’s appeal (Joven-De Jesus vs. PNB, 12 SCRA 447).4.
Failure to file briefs within the reglementary period (People vs. Cawili, 34 SCRA 728).5.
Failure to attend to trial without filing a motion for postponement or without requesting either of his two partners in the law office to take his place and appear for the defendants (Gaerlan vs. Bernal, G.R. No. L-4049, Jan. 28, 1952). Failure to appear at pre-trial (Agravante vs. Patriarca, 183 SCRA 113).6.
Failure of counsel to notify clients of the scheduled trial which prevented the latter to look to another lawyer to represent them while counsel was in the hospital (Ventura vs. Santos, 59 Phil. 123).7.
Failure to appear simply because the client did not go to counsel’s office on the date of the trial as was agreed upon (Alcoriza vs. Lumakang, Adm. Case No. 249, November 21, 1978).8.
Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after receiving the amount for the purpose (Capulong vs. Alino, 22 SCRA 491).9.
Failure to take action to have adverse decision reconsidered (PHHC vs. Tiongco, 207 SCRA 153) or failure to appeal the adverse decision (Francisco, Jr. vs. Bosa and Bandong, 205 SCRA 722).10.
Failure to notify the court of counsel’s change of address resulting in failure to receive judicial orders to the prejudice of the client (Juane vs. Garcia, 25 SCRA 801)11.
Failure to take necessary precaution to insure that he receives all court notices and processes promptly (Javier vs. Madamba, Jr., 174 SCRA 495).12.
Failure to present evidence (Gonzales vs. Presiding Judge of Branch I, RTC of Bohol, 186 SCRA 101).13.
Failure to file the required position paper which prejudiced client’s cause (Lorenzana Food Corp. vs. Daria, 197 SCRA 249).Instances where the client is not bound by counsel’s negligence:
(a) In the case of an irresponsible lawyer who totally forgot about the case and failed to inform his client of the decision, the Supreme Court held that the client should not be bound by the negligence of the counsel. (Republic vs. Arro, 150 SCRA 630)
(b) A party is not bound by the actions of his counsel in case the gross negligence of the counsel resulted in the client’s deprivation of his property without due process (Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418).
(c) “Where there is something fishy and suspicious about the actuations of the former counsel of petitioners in the case at bar, in the case he did not give any significance at all to the processes of the court, which has proven prejudicial to the rights of said clients, under a lame and flimsy explanation that the courts processes just escaped his attention, it is held that the said lawyer deprived his clients of their day in court (PHHC vs. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471).
(d) Application of the rule, “results in the outright deprivation of one’s property through a technicality.” (Escudero vs. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69, 78)
(e) In the case of an irresponsible lawyer who totally forgot about the case and failed to inform his client of the decision, the Supreme Court held that the client should not be bound by the negligence of the counsel. (Republic vs. Arro, et al., 150 SCRA 630)
(f) A party is not bound by the actions of his counsel in case the gross negligence of the counsel resulted in the client’s deprivation of his property without due process. (Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418)
(g) The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the appeal for the failure to file the appellant’s brief on time, it appearing that the appellant’s former counsel had abandoned him and could not be contacted despite earnest efforts. (Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,250 SCRA 371)
(h) The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order, the same being due to the trial counsel’s blunder in procedure and gross negligence of existing jurisprudence. (Escudero vs. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69)
(i) IT was once ruled that the unconscionable failure of a lawyer to inform his client of the receipt of the court order and the motion for execution and to take the appropriate action against either or both to protect his client’s rights amounted to connivance with the prevailing party which constituted extrinsic fraud. (Bayog vs. Natino, 258 SCRA 378)
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
Baker vs. Humprhey, 101 US 494, 25 L ed 1065 (1879)
It is the duty of an attorney to advise his client promptly whenever he has any information to give which is important that the client receive.
Oparel vs. Abaria, 40 SCRA 128 (1971)
The client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by which his interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted.
Alcala vs. De Vera, 56 SCRA 30
In failing to inform his client of the decision in the civil case handled by him, the lawyer failed to exercise such skill, care and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client’s being adequately and fully informed and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are being defended.