Read -
A.C. No. 9317 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3615), June 04, 2014, ADELIA V. QUIACHON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR A. RAMOS, RESPONDENT.
From: THE LAWYER'S POST.
"x x x.
This Court finds this to be an opportune time to remind the investigating commissioners and the members of the Board of Governors of the IBP that the withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar.[1]
In the present case, Almeyda recommended the dismissal of the case against respondent, even after finding that the latter had been negligent. On the basis of this finding, the latter was declared to have “been remiss in failing to update complainant in what had happened to the cases being handled by him in behalf of complainant.”[2] Still, Almeyda recommended the dismissal of the case, because “without the complaint, there will be no basis to make any finding of liability.”[3] The Board of Governors of the IBP affirmed the recommendation.
The IBP Board of Governors should not have supported Almeyda’s stance.
The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.[4] There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.[5] Public interest is the primary objective. We explained why in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos[6], viz.:
The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven x x x. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges x x x.
In this case, the IBP found that respondent violated Canon Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, it should have imposed the appropriate penalty despite the desistance of complainant or the withdrawal of the charges.
The failure of respondent to file an appeal from the CA Decision without any justifiable reason deserves sanction. Lawyers who disagree with the pursuit of an appeal should properly withdraw their appearance and allow their client to retain another counsel.[7]
In Abay v. Montesino[8], the respondent-lawyer and his client disagreed on the legal course to be taken regarding the appealed case. The lawyer therein strongly advised the client to abandon the appeal and to consider the other available remedies. The client, on the other hand, wanted to pursue it. Without obtaining the assent of his client, the respondent-lawyer deemed it wise to abandon the appeal without informing the former. In finding the respondent-lawyer guilty of negligence, the Court explained:
Not filing an appellant's brief is prejudicial because, as happened in this case, such failure could result in the dismissal of the appeal. The conduct of respondent shows that he failed to exercise due diligence, and that he had a cavalier attitude towards the cause of his client. The abandonment by the former of the latter's cause made him unworthy of the trust that his client reposed in him. Even if respondent was "honestly and sincerely" protecting the interests of complainant, the former still had no right to waive the appeal without the latter's knowledge and consent. If indeed respondent felt unable or unwilling to continue his retainership, he should have properly withdrawn his appearance and allowed the client to appoint another lawyer.[9]
In the present case, respondent failed not only to keep the client informed of the status of the case, but also to avail of the proper legal remedy that would promote the client’s cause. It is clear that respondent neglected the case entrusted to him.
All lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause.[10] Regardless of their personal views, they must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause.[11] Whenever lawyers take on their clients’ cause/s, they covenant that they will exercise due diligence in protecting the client’s rights; their failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes them unworthy of the trust reposed in them by their client/s and make them answerable to the client, the courts and society.[12]
In Pilapil v. Carillo[13], this Court upheld the recommendation of the IBP to suspend a lawyer from the practice of law for six months after finding that he had failed to file a petition for certiorari of the adverse decision rendered in the case of his client despite the latter’s repeated follow-ups.
x x x."
