A.C. No. 12661 – 871 Phil. 169 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Lawyers – Duty to Update Client of Case Status; Motion for Reconsideration
Benjamin Katipunan, Jr. filed a labor case against his former employer. The Labor Arbiter awarded him $60,000.00 but he was not satisfied with the judgment as he believed that the judgment award should be $90,000.00. Benjamin engaged the services of Atty. Rebene Carrera in appealing the decision to the NLRC. The NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and ruled in favor of the employer. Benjamin appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA sustained the NLRC. Benjamin appealed to the SC.
On 25 February 2010, Atty. Carrera received a copy of the SC’s Decision which denied their appeal.
In March 2010, Benjamin went to Atty. Carrera’s office to inquire on the status of the case. Atty. Carrera told him that the case was still pending appeal.
In May 2010, Benjamin again went to Atty. Carrera’s office and Atty. Carrera again told him that the case was still pending. This time however, Benjamin borrowed the case folder and there he saw the adverse SC Decision.
Benjamin then filed an administrative case against Atty. Carrera. One of the allegations by Benjamin was that he was deprived of the opportunity to question the SC Decision when Atty. Carrera failed to inform him of the adverse Decision. In his Answer, Atty. Carrera averred that he decided not to file a motion for reconsideration when he received the SC Decision because he knew that Benjamin’s case has no merit; that he will risk being cited in contempt if he files a baseless motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Carrera should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The moment the lawyer-client relationship commences, the relationship of the lawyer and the client becomes imbued with trust and confidence. Thereupon, the lawyer is bound to serve his or her clients with full competence, and to attend to their cause with utmost diligence, care and devotion. In accordance with this highly fiduciary relationship, the client expects the lawyer to be always mindful of the former’s cause and to be diligent in handling his or her legal affairs. In this case, Atty. Carrera was remiss when he failed to update Benjamin of the status of his case. As an essential part of this highly fiduciary relationship, the client is entitled to a periodic and full status update from the lawyer pertaining to the case.
When a client requests for a follow-up on his case, the update from the lawyer must not only be prompt, but also full and effective. The lawyer must not merely brush aside the client’s request without even perusing the case records. For the client is entitled to a full-disclosure on the material developments on his case. To be clear, a lawyer need not wait for their clients to ask for information but must advise them without delay about matters essential for them to avail of legal remedies.
Atty. Carrera was not justified in deciding on his own whether to pursue a motion for reconsideration before the Court. Benjamin is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. The SC emphasized that a lawyer is not in the position to rule on the merits of his or her complainant’s case. Neither can a lawyer unilaterally decide whether to forego the very last remedy available to his or her client. Here, Atty. Carrera, on his own, opted to no longer file a motion for reconsideration in Benjamin’s case since Atty. Carrera opined there was no new issue, matter or evidence to offer anyway for the purpose of convincing the Court to favorably rule for his client. Worse, Atty. Carrera did not even relay to Benjamin that he chose not to move for reconsideration of the decree of denial. Neither did he terminate his services as Benjamin’s counsel.
