Legal Ethics

Alfredo Olvida vs Atty. Arnel Gonzales

image_printPrint this!

A.C. No. 5732 – 760 Phil. 14 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer must control handling of case

Alfredo Olvida sought the services of Atty. Arnel Gonzales in the filing of a DARAB case against a negligent tenant. The DARAB required the parties in that case to file their respective position papers. When the deadline came, Olvida asked Atty. Gonzales if the position paper was filed and Olvida was informed that the position paper was filed. Later, Olvida received an adverse decision where it was stated that he failed to submit a position paper.

Olvida then filed an administrative case against Atty. Gonzales. In his answer, Atty. Gonzales blamed Olvida. He argued that a position paper is dispensable in DARAB cases and that the non-submission of the position paper was due to Olvida’s failure to make any attachments to his complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gonzales should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Gonzales’ boldness in saying that his failure to file the position paper in the tenancy case was due to the Olvida’s fault is appalling. Firstly, he was hired by Olvida at the start of the DARAB case. Secondly, he was hired by Olvida to plead his case hence he should handle the case as a lawyer and not according to Olvida’s way. A lawyer “shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.” Thus, Atty. Gonzales’ lame excuse that Olvida failed to provide him with the documents he needed in the preparation of the position paper. Notably, even the Investigator recognized that Olvida submitted documents to Atty. Gonzales; whatever was lacking could not be submitted as Olvida could not even contact Atty. Gonzales despite repeated attempts. He should have acted as a lawyer in the case, not as a mere agent waiting for the Olvida’s instructions. He should not have wasted several months doing nothing about the position paper he knew had to be filed.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply