A.C. No. 5239. November 18, 2013
Sps. George A. Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner Vs. Atty. Reni M. Dublin
"Worse, it appears that respondent deliberately mishandled Civil Case
No. 23,396-95 to the prejudice of herein complainants. Culled from the
pleadings respondent submitted before this Court and the IBP, respondent
admitted that he deliberately failed to timely file a formal offer of exhibits
because he believes that the exhibits were fabricated and was hoping that the
same would be refused admission by the RTC. This is improper. If
respondent truly believes that the exhibits to be presented in evidence by his
clients were fabricated, then he has the option to withdraw from the case.
Canon 22 allows a lawyer to withdraw his services for good cause such as
“[w]hen the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct with the
matter he is handling”20 or “[w]hen the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of these canons and rules.”21 Respondent adverted to the
estimate of damages provided by Bening’s Garden as a fabrication as there
is no such entity in Laurel St., Davao City. Unfortunately, respondent
anchored his claim that Bening's Garden does not exist merely on the claim
of Rudolph C. Lumibao, a “sympathetic client” and a part-time gardener.
Complainants refuted this allegation by claiming that Bening's Garden must
have relocated its business considering that more than eight years have
passed since the estimate was secured. Complainants also pointed out that
since the filing of this case, respondent has thrice relocated his office but
this does not mean that his practice has ceased to exist."
