60 – Carandang vs Obmina Facts: Carandang lost in an eviction case. He confronted his counsel, Atty. Obmina, on hy he had not inform him about his case and for not a!!ealing the same in the higher court. Carandang claimed that if only his counsel inform him about his case, his reglementary !eriod to a!!eal the decision should not have been la!sed. Conse"uently, Carandang filed a sorn#statement in the Commission on $ar disci!line of the %$& stating his com!laint about hat Atty. Obmina done to his case. After the investigation investigation,, the %$& ruled that the res!ondent res!ondent ho has in his !ossession !ossession the com!lete com!lete files and address of the com!lainant, com!lainant, should have e'erted efforts to even notify (r. Carandang as to hat ha!!ened to his his ca case se.. )het )hethe herr the the deci decisio sion n is adve advers rse e *to+ *to+ or in favo favorr of his his clie client nt,, res!ondent is duty bound to notify the clients !ursuant to Canon - of the Code of &rofessional thics hich !rovides that /a / a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." Further under ule -.01 of Canon -, /a /a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his neglige negligence nce in connec connectio tion n therew therewith ith shall shall render render him liable liable." ." 2astly, under ule -.03, "a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and and shal shalll resp respo ond wit within hin a reas reason onab able le time time to clie client nt’’s requ reque est for for information." 4hat as a result of the res!ondent5s failure to notify the com!lainant, the latter lost the case leading to his eviction. 4hus, the %$& sus!ended Atty. Obmina from the !ractice of la for year. year. %ssue: )hether or not Atty. Obmina be sus!ended from the !ractice of la uling: 7es. 7es. Atty. Obmina be sus!ended from the !ractice of la. Canon - states that /*a+ layer shall serve his client ith com!etence and diligence./ diligence./ ules -.01 and -.03 !rovide that /*a+ layer shall not neglect neglect a legal matter entrusted entrusted to him, and his negligence negligence in connection connection thereith thereith shall render him liable/ and /*a+ layer shall 8ee! the client informed of the status of his case and shall res!ond ithin a reasonable time to the client5s re"uest for information./ Contrary to Atty. Obmina5s Obmina5s !romise, there is no evidence on record that Atty. Obmina too8 the initiative to notify Carandang of the trial court5s adverse
decision. Atty. Obmina again !ut Carandang at fault for failure to advance the a!!eal fee. Atty. Obmina5s futile efforts of shifting the blame on Carandang only serve to em!hasi9e his failure to notify Carandang that the trial court already !romulgated a decision in Civil Case o. $#;0< that as adverse to Carandang5s interests. Atty. Obmina cannot overloo8 the fact that Carandang learned about the !romulgation of the decision not through Atty. Obmina himself, but through a chance visit to the trial court. %nstead of letting Carandang 8no of the adverse decision himself, Atty. Obmina should have immediately contacted Carandang, e'!lained the decision to him, and advised them on further ste!s that could be ta8en. %t is obvious that Carandang lost his right to file an a!!eal because of Atty. Obmina5s inaction. otithstanding Atty. Obmina5s subse"uent ithdraal as Carandang5s layer, Atty. Obmina as still counsel of record at the time the trial court !romulgated the decision in Civil Case o. $#;0<. %n Tolentino v. Mangapit, e stated that: As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform her client of hatever information she may have ac"uired hich it is im!ortant that the client should have 8noledge of. =he should notify her client of any adverse decision to enable her client to decide hether to see8 an a!!ellate revie thereof. >ee!ing the client informed of the develo!ments of the case ill minimi9e misunderstanding and *loss+ of trust and confidence in the attorney. 4he relationshi! of layer#client being one of confidence, there is ever !resent the need for the layer to inform timely and ade"uately the client of im!ortant develo!ments affecting the client5s case. 4he layer should not leave the client in the dar8 on ho the layer is defending the client5s interests. 4he Court finds ell#ta8en the recommendation of the %$& to sus!end Atty. ?ilbert =. Obmina from the !ractice of la for one year.
