FIGUERAS VS JIMENEZ

FIRST DIVISION

[ A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014 ]

NESTOR B. FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR., COMPLAINANTS,

VS.

ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Congressional Village Homeowner’s Association, Inc. is the entity in charge of the affairs of the homeowners of Congressional Village in Quezon City. The Spouses Federico and Victoria Santander filed a civil suit for damages against the Association and Ely Mabanag before the RTC for building a concrete wall which abutted their property and denied them of their right of way. The spouses Santander likewise alleged that said concrete wall was built in violation of Quezon City Ordinance which prohibits the closing, obstructing, preventing or otherwise refusing to the public or vehicular traffic the use of or free access to any subdivision or community street. The Law Firm of Gonzalez Sinense Jimenez and Associates was the legal counsel for the Association, with respondent as the counsel of record and handling lawyer. After trial and hearing, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the Spouses Santander. The Association, represented by said law firm, appealed to the CA. The CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal on the ground that the original period to file the appellant’s brief had expired 95 days even before the first motion for extension of time to file said brief was filed. The CA also stated that the grounds adduced for the said motion as well as the six subsequent motions for extension of time to file brief were not meritorious. The CA resolution became final.

Eight years later or on April 11, 2007, complainants Nestor Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr., as members of the Association, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against respondent before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 12.03, Canon 12; Canon 17; and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 thereof for his negligence in handling the appeal and willful violation of his duties as an officer of the court.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:

 A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellant’s brief on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the same Code also states that:

Canon 18—A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03.—A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. (Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 159) A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. (People vs. Villar, 46 SCRA 107) The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice. (Canons 21 and 22, Canons of Professional Ethics; People vs. Daban, 43 SCRA 185; People vs. Estocada, 43 SCRA 515).