|
WE continue our portrayal of the Supreme Court’s decision in the
case of Estela Anastacio-Briones v. Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta (Adm.
Case 6266). The following events took place:
At the same time, the respondent denied
promising the complainant that he would attend the January 6, 2003,
hearing. According to him, the complainant informed his secretary
that her new lawyer would attend. He further claimed that
complainant’s new lawyer should be faulted for belatedly filing an
entry of appearance and a motion for reconsideration. He claimed
that he was merely being used as a scapegoat for complainant’s own
negligence in pursuing the cases.
In a resolution, dated September 20, 2004, the
Supreme Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. In his
report and recommendation, dated May 26, 2005, Commissioner Dennis
A.B. Funa of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent
liable for negligence in the performance of his duties as counsel
and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s suspension for three months from the practice of law
was thereby recommended. In a resolution, dated October 22, 2005,
the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner Funa. On November 15, 2005, the IBP
Board of Governors sent the report to the Supreme Court, pursuant to
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. On January 4, 2006, the respondent
filed with the High Tribunal a motion for reconsideration, but the
IBP recommended its denial.
The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the
IBP that respondent was remiss in performing his duties as counsel
for complainant. It found respondent liable for negligence and for
violation of Canon 18, specifically Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
code of Professional Responsibility. Parenthetically, Canon 18
provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Thus, a lawyer should not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and should keep the client informed of the status
of his case—and should respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information.
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
provides the proper procedure for a lawyer’s withdrawal as counsel
in a case. Unless the procedure prescribed in the abovementioned
section is complied with, the attorney of record is regarded as the
counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders
and pleadings and who should be held responsible for the case. For
its part, the court can recognize no other representation on behalf
of the client except such counsel of record until a formal
substitution of attorney is effected.
Consequently, the respondent was meted the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three months
effective upon finality of the subject decision. 
Above all things, let us be inspired by the
following words of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ: I am telling
you the truth: Those who believe in me will do what I do—yes, they
will do even greater things, because I am going to the Father. And I
will do whatever you ask for in my name, so that the Father’s
glory will be shown through the Son. If you ask me for anything in
my name, I will do it.” (John 14:12-14).
|
