A.C. No. 10043. November 20, 2013
Aurora H. Cabauatan Vs. Atty. Freddie A. Venida
"It is beyond dispute that complainant engaged the services of respondent to handle her case which was then on appeal before the Court of Appeals. However, respondent merely showed to complainant the draft of the pleading “Appearance as Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous Counsel and a Motion for Extension of time to File a Memorandum” but failed to file the same before the appellate court. Plainly, respondent had been remiss and negligent in handling the case of his client; he neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the complainant and he is liable therefor.
Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. x x x14
Complainant also established that she made several follow-ups with the respondent but the latter merely ignored her or made her believe that he
was diligently handling her case. Thus, complainant was surprised when she
received a notice from the Court of Appeals informing her that her appeal
had been abandoned and her case dismissed. The dismissal had become
final and executory. This is a clear violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to keep their
clients informed of the status of their case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients' request for information."
