Figueras and Victoria, Jr. v. Atty. Atty. Jimenez A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 21! "octrine: "octrine: A lawyer engaged to represent rep resent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellant’s brief on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel. Facts: Facts: Sps. Santander filed a suit for damages against Congressional Village Homeowner’s Association for building a concrete wall which abutted their property and denied them of their right of way. Atty. Atty. imene! was the counsel of record r ecord and handling lawyer for the Association. After After trial, the "#C rendered a decision in fa$or of the Spouses. #he Association appealed to the CA but such was dismissed on the ground that the original period to file the appellant’s brief had e%pired &' days e$en before the first motion for e%tension of time to file said brief was filed. #he CA also stated that the grounds adduced for the said motion as well as the si% subse(uent motions for e%tension of time to file brief were not meritorious. ) years later petitioners, p etitioners, as members of the Association, filed a Complaint for *isbarment against respondent before the I+-C+* for $iolation of the C", for his negligence in handling the appeal. a ppeal. In his answer, respondent claimed that although his law firm represented the Association, the case was actually handled by an associate lawyer in his law office. As the partner in charge of the case, he e%ercised general super$ision o$er the handling counsel and signed the pleadings prepared by said handling lawyer. pon disco$ery of the omissions o f the handling lawyer, sanctions were imposed on the handling lawyer and he thereafter personally too/ responsibility and spent personal funds to negotiate a settlement with 0ederico Santander at no cost to the Association. 1o damage whatsoe$er was caused c aused to the Association. "espondent li/ewise alleged that present case is only an act of retaliation after he defeated 0igueras in the election for resident of the Association and the case the Association filed against the petitioners petitioners after the latter refused to pay their association dues. "espondent added that petitioners petitioners ha$e no personality to file the disbarment complaint as they were not his clients2 hence, there was li/ewise no 3urisdiction o$er the complaint on the part of the I+-C+*. #ssue: #ssue: 4hether Atty, Atty, imeno was negligent in handling the case of the Associaiton against the Spouses Santander5 $e%d: $e%d: &es &es. "ecords show that respondent filed the first motion for e%tension of time to file appellant’s brief &' days after the e%piration of the reglementary period to file said brief, thus causing the dismissal of the appeal of o f the Association. #o #o 3ustify his negligence, respondent alleges that he was merely the super$ising lawyer and that the fault lies with the associate lawyer. His contention, howe$er, is belied by the r ecords for it is noted that respondent had filed with the CA an rgent 6otion for 7 %tension, which he himself signed on behalf of the law firm, stating that a pre$ious motion had been filed but 8due to the health condition of the undersigned counsel9he was not able to finish
said Appellants’ +rief within the fifteen ;'< day period earlier re(uested by him.8 #hus, it is clear that respondent was personally in charge of the case. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellant’s brief on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in "ule ;=.>?, Canon ;= of the Code of rofessional "esponsibility which e%horts e$ery member of the +ar not to unduly delay a case and to e%ert e$ery effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of 3ustice. "ule ;).>@, Canon ;) of the same Code also states that a lawyer shall ser$e his client with competence and diligence and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. #he Court finds no merit in respondent’s contention that complainants ha$e no personality to file a disbarment case against him as they were not his clients and that the present suit was merely instituted to harass him. #he procedural re(uirement obser$ed in ordinary ci$il proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. Any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. #he right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered in3ury from the alleged wrongdoing. *isbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the 3udgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. Atty imeno is found administrati$ely liable suspended for ; month.
