Jasper Junno Rodica vs Atty. Manuel Lazaro, Atty. Edwin Espejo, Atty. Abel Almario, Atty. Michelle Lazaro, Atty. Joseph Tan, and John Does

A.C. No. 9259 – 693 Phil. 174 – 679 SCRA 1 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Counsel to Protect the Defenseless and the Oppressed; When not applicable

Jasper Junno Rodica lost a civil case in Boracay. Rodica, through her counsel of record Atty. Joan Tabanar-Ibutnande, filed a motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, Rodica became acquainted with the lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office (Atty. Manuel Lazaro, Atty. Edwin Espejo, Atty. Abel Almario, and Atty. Michelle Lazaro) – a law firm in Manila.

Sometime later, a motion to withdraw the motion for reconsideration filed in the Boracay civil case was filed by Rodica. The motion was signed by Rodica, Atty. Tabanar-Ibutnande and Atty. Espejo.

The motion was granted and so Rodica was deemed to have foregone her claim. However, after the motion was granted, Rodica had a change of mind. She claimed that she was defrauded by the Lazaro Law Office into giving up the civil case in Boracay. She alleged that after paying the Lazaro Law Office, she was abandoned by them and they even denied that she was their client. As a result, she filed a disbarment case against the lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office and their alleged cohorts.

In their defense, the Lazaro Law Office lawyers averred that Rodica is not their client; that it was her live-in partner that was their client.

On his part, Atty. Espejo admitted that after being sweet-talked by Rodica, he prepared the motion to withdraw but he advised Rodica to have Atty. Tabanar-Ibutnande review the motion as it was Atty. Tabanar-Ibutnande’s call whether or not to file it; that according to Rodica, Atty. Tabanar-Ibutnande recommended that to make the pleading more persuasive, the motion should likewise be signed by the lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office; that Rodica persuaded Atty. Espejo to sign first and after he signed, Rodica undertook to that she will have the other partners sign the motion. Atty. Espejo further claimed that he drafted and signed the pleading just to extend assistance to Rodica in accordance with his professional responsibility not to reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Atty. Espejo is administratively liable.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Espejo’s claim that he drafted and signed the pleading just to extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true that a lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if he does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot be considered as defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented by Atty. Tabanar-Ibutnande in the Boracay case. Needless to state, her rights are amply safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not been represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.

Read full text.