Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Whether or not Atty. Alcid's proven acts and omissions constitute gross
misconduct.
HELD:
Yes, Atty. Alcid's violation of Canons 17 and 18 and Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyers Oath, constitute gross
misconduct.
Complainant correctly alleged that respondent violated his oath under
Canon 18 to "serve his client with competence and diligence" when respondent filed a
criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a
civil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed,
respondent committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific
performance and damages before the RTC. The complaint, having an alternative prayer
for the payment of damages, should have been filed with the Municipal Trial Court which
has jurisdiction over complainants claim which amounts to only P36,000.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not
to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable. He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or
nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Similarly, under Rule 18.04, a lawyer has
the duty to apprise his client of the status and developments of the case and all other
information relevant thereto. He must be consistently mindful of his obligation to respond
promptly should there be queries or requests for information from the client. Hence,
despite the efforts exerted and the vigilance exhibited by complainant, respondent
neglected and failed to fulfill his obligation under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 to keep his
client informed of the status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time to the
clients request for information.
Canon 17 of the Code states that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." The legal
profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the
highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of the clients interest. The
most thorough groundwork and study must be undertaken in order to safeguard the
interest of the client. Respondent has defied and failed to perform such duty and his
omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyers Oath.
Hence, the Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP that
respondent committed professional negligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, with a modification that we also find respondent
guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code and the Lawyers Oath.