In the case of CARLITO P. CARANDANG vs. ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA, A.C. No. 7813, April 21, 2009, the respondent Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina was found GUILTY of violation of Canon 18 and of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Philippine Supreme Court suspended Atty. Obmina from the practice of law for one year, and warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
The administrative complaint was filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Obmina, who was was counsel for Carandang in Civil Case No. B-5109 entitled “Sps. Emilia A. Carandang and Carlito Carandang v. Ernesto Alzona.” Carandang administratively sued Atty. Obmina for his failure to inform the former of the adverse decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 and for his failure to appeal the decision.
In a Report dated 2 October 2007, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. found that Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record for complainant at the time the decision was rendered and up to the time of the issuance of the writ of execution. Atty. Obmina received the Decision dated 28 January 2000 on 1 March 2000. Atty. Carmencita Obmina-Muaña manifested in Court that her father has been living in the United States of America since 2001. There was nothing on record that would show that Atty. Obmina notified complainant in any manner about the decision.
Although Commissioner De La Rama observed that complainant was partly to blame for his loss for failure to maintain contact with Atty. Obmina and to inform himself of the progress of his case, Commissioner De La Rama nonetheless underscored the duty of Atty. Obmina to notify his client as to what happened to his case.
The Commissioner stated that the respondent who had in his possession the complete files and address of the complainant, should have exerted efforts to even notify Mr. Carandang as to what happened to his case. Whether the decision was adverse [to] or in favor of his client, respondent was duty bound to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics which provides that “a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.” Further under Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” Lastly, under Rule 18.04, “a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client’s request for information.”
The Commissioner cited the case of Mijares vs. Romana 425 SCRA 577, where the Supreme Court held that “as an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever information he may have acquired which it is important that the client should have knowledge of.” The “respondent’s failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility” (Cheng vs. Agravante, 426 SCRA 42).
In a Resolution dated 19 October 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner De La Rama.
The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP and adopted its recommendations. It held that Atty. Obmina had violated Canon 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 18 states that “[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.” Rules 18.03 and 18.04 provide that “[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable” and “[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.”
The Court added that Atty. Obmina’s futile efforts of shifting the blame on Carandang only served to emphasize his failure to notify Carandang that the trial court already promulgated a decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 that was adverse to Carandang’s interests. Atty. Obmina could not overlook the fact that Carandang learned about the promulgation of the decision not through Atty. Obmina himself, but through a chance visit to the trial court. Instead of letting Carandang know of the adverse decision himself, Atty. Obmina should have immediately contacted Carandang, explained the decision to him, and advised them on further steps that could be taken. It was obvious that Carandang lost his right to file an appeal because of Atty. Obmina’s inaction. Notwithstanding Atty. Obmina’s subsequent withdrawal as Carandang’s lawyer, Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record at the time the trial court promulgated the decision in Civil Case No. B-5109.
The Court held that as an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform her client of whatever information she may have acquired which it is important that the client should have knowledge of. She should notify her client of any adverse decision to enable her client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and [loss] of trust and confidence in the attorney.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the client’s case. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client’s interests.
