In 1987, Elmo Moton filed a civil case in Quezon City. His counsel was Atty. Raymundo Cadiao. During the scheduled pre-trial, Atty. Cadiao failed to appear hence the case was dismissed. The dismissal was reconsidered upon motion of Atty. Cadiao. Subsequent hearings were scheduled including five hearing dates in August 1991. Atty. Cadiao cannot attend the August 1991 hearings because he had to attend a hearing in Antique. On the hearing for his motion to reset, Atty. Cadiao was absent because he already left for Antique. This resulted in the dismissal of the case. Atty. Cadiao appealed but on appeal he withdraw his appearance as counsel for Moton.
Moton then filed an administrative case against Atty. Cadiao. In response, Atty. Cadiao averred that the main reason for the undue delay in the presentation of evidence in Moton’s civil case was the inability of the Moton to furnish him with the original copies of the evidence and that his failure to appear during the scheduled hearing was due to a compelling need to appear in another case in Antique which made it impossible for him to attend both hearings.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cadiao must be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. His excuse is not acceptable. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In this case, by reason of Atty. Cadiao’s negligence, actual loss has been caused to Moton. He should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is why a practicing lawyer may accept only so many cases that he can efficiently handle. Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his lawyer’s oath. He was fined Php10k.
