Torts. Atienza v Evangelista.digest

MARIA LUZ ATIENZA, Complainant , vs. VICENTE EVANGELISTA, Respondent . A.M. No. 1517 November 29, 1977 FERNANDO,  J. library !RINCI!LES LEGAL MALPRACTICE

te complainant to sow tat te respondent is #!ilty o( te acts car#ed. In te present case, tere is no s!'cient evidence sowin# tat te respondent lawyer violated is oat or was ne#li#ent in andlin# te complainant%s case. Te respondent personally prepared te complaint o( Mrs. Atien"a and fled tis wit te $iscal%s &'ce. 1en te case was set (or preliminary investi#ation, e was present in no less tan 56 sced!led earin#s. )e presented as witnesses te complainant and (o!r oter persons. Tese (acts are ome by te case record and admitted by te complainant. Te complainant%s case was dismissed apparently beca!se o( te (ail!re o( te complainant%s witnesses to s!bmit to cross7eamination.

FACTS In a complaint fled wit tis Co!rt by Maria L!" Atien"a, respondent V"#e$%e Ev&$'e(")%&, & member o* %+e !+"(""$e -&r, &) #+&r'e/ "%+ 0$ro*e))"o$&( #o$/0#% 0$be#om"$' & member o* %+e b&r.

It was alle#ed tat e was remiss in attendin# to er case wit te Manila City $iscal%s &'ce notwitstandin# is avin# been retained and paid (or is services. )e was re*!ired to answer. answer. Tat e did.  Tere was an admission on is part o( is avin# been retained, b!t e denied any imp!tation o( lac+ o( d!e dili#ence in per(ormin# te le#al services re*!ired o( im.

Evan#elista was, t!s, constrained to s!bmit te case on te basis o(  te evidence already on record. Tese (acts do not indicate ne#li#ence on te Part o( te respondent. Te complainant wo was present d!rin# te earin# was (!lly aware tat se still ad to present two o( er witnesses (or cross7eamination on te net sced!led earin#.law library As to te alle#ation by complainant tat respondent did not in(orm er tat te case ad been dismissed and tat e did notin# to remedy te same, te record does not s!pport tis claim. Atien"a also confrms tat se terminated te respondent%s services.

 Te concl!din# para#rap o( te report report (ollows0 -Te complaint )e asserted tat e ad always cond!cted imsel( in a manner a#ainst te respondent Atty. Atty. 8icente E van#elists as not been epected o( a lawyer lawyer.. Tis notwitstandin#, tere was a establised by competent evidence. Te dismissal o( Mrs. Atien"a%s recommendation by te investi#atin# fscal tat te case be dropped (or ins!'ciency o( evidence. Ten and tere, complainant dispensed case is not imp!table to respondent. A member o* %+e b&r #&$$o% be )0be#%e/ %o %+e er"( o* /")b&rme$% )"m( be#&0)e o* wit is services and sortly terea(ter too+ (rom im all te papers /e#")"o$ &/ver)e %o +") #("e$%.  Te serio!s conse*!ence o( connected wit s!c a case. It was is ass!mption tere(ore tat e disbarment or s!spension so!ld (ollow only were tere is a clear -was no lon#er !nder obli#ation to participate in any proceedin# in preponderance o( evidence sowin# te te basis tereo(.tereo(.- Accordin#ly, connection wit said case. Tat d!ty ad been si(ted to te new te recommendation was (or te dismissal o( te complaint. lawyer o( Mrs. Atien"a in te case involvin# er !sband.- virt!al law law library I/E0 1eter te respondent was wil(!lly ne#li#ent in te per(ormance o( is d!ties as co!nsel to te complainant to te dama#e and pre2!dice o( te latter latter..

)EL30

Membersip in te bar is an eactin# responsibility. responsibility. It is, to *!ote (rom 4!stice Cardo"o, -a privile#e b!rdened wit conditions.- 1 It imposes, at te very least, te obli#ation o( attendin# wit d!e "eal and dili#ence to a client%s ca!se.

As a r!le, an attorney en2oys te le#al pres!mption tat e is innocent o( te car#es !ntil te contrary is proved, and, as an o'cer o( te co!rt, e as per(ormed is d!ty in accordance wit is oat.. T!s, in every case o( disbarment te b!rden o( proo( lies wit

 Tis Co!rt is in a#reement. a#reement. It wo!ld be to place an intolerable b!rden on a member o( te bar i( 2!st beca!se a client 2ailed to obtain wat is so!#t by er a(ter d!e eertion o( te re*!ired e9ort on is part, e wo!ld be eld acco!ntable. !ccess in a liti#ation is certainly not te test o( weter or not a lawyer ad lived !p to is d!ties to a client. It is eno!# tat wit te toro!# preparation o( te case andled by im, e ad ta+en all te steps to prosec!te is s!it. I( terea(ter te res!lt wo!ld be te (r!stration o( is client%s opes, tat is a ca!se (or disappointment, no do!bt (or im no less tan (or is client, b!t not (or disciplinary action. )e is more to be sympati"ed wit tan condemned 7 on te ass!mption o( co!rse tat e did wat was epected o( im.  law library

DIS!OSITIVE  1)ERE$&RE, te complaint a#ainst Attorney 8icente Evan#elists is dismissed. Let a copy o( tis resol!tion be spread on is record.