CESAR TALENTO and MODESTA TALENTO v ATTY. AGUSTIN PANEDA, A.C. No. 7433 | 609 scra 1

FACTS: Petitioners secured the services of Atty. Paneda to help and defend them in the civil case filed against them. Atty. Paneda failed to submit the pre-trial brief for the petitioners behalf despite the order and notice of the court. He also failed to appear during the pre-trial hearing. As a result, petitioners were declared in default because of the failure of their counsel to file and submit pre-trial brief, the court allowed to hear the case ex parte. The court issued decision against the petitioners. Atty. Paneda filed motion for reconsideration but the same was dismissed. Atty. Paneda told petitioners that he will appeal the case to the CA and they agreed. He filed a notice of appeal. Petitioners paid the required fees and he even required petitioners to shell out more money for the preparation of the Appeal brief. Petitioner waited for so long for the decision of the CA and found out later that their appeal was dismissed due to lack of appeal brief only when they went to Atty. Paneda.
That is reason why an administrative complaint was filed by the petitioners charging Atty. Paneda of violation of his oath as a lawyer and neglect of duty.

ISSUE: WON respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling petitioners’ case both on trial in the RTC and on appeal in CA which led to its dismissal without affording petitioners the opportunity to present their evidence.

RULING: The SC agrees with the IBP in its findings and the conclusion that respondent’s documented acts fall extremely short of the standard of professional duty that all lawyers are required to faithfully adhere to.
The SC found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 17 and 18 as well as Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is beyond dispute that respondent is duty-bound by his oath as a lawyer to diligently prosecute the case of his client to the best of his ability within the bounds of law. Regrettably, the facts of this case illustrate the respondent’s dismissal performance of that responsibility which in its totality could amount to a reprehensible abandonment of his clients’ cause. A lawyer, when he undertakes his client’s cause, makes a covenant that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until its final conclusion. He should undertake the task with dedication and care, and he should do no less, otherwise, he is not true to his lawyer’s oath.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more