Santiago v. Fojas

PALE 1. Santiago v.
Fojas
VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. A.C. No. 4103
HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F. MANAS, and Date: September 7, 1995
TRINIDAD NORDISTA, complainants, Ponente: DAVIDE JR., J.:
vs.
ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, respondent.

SUMMARY
Complainants, represented by Atty. Fojas, are officers of FEUFA (woooh Go, Tamaraws!) who are the
defendants in an illegal expulsion case filed by Salvador. Salvador won. He then filed an action for
damages sa RTC. Atty. Fojas filed a motion to dismiss. RTC granted. Salvador nag-MR. RTC granted and
required parties to submit answer within 15days. Atty. Fojas, nag-MR. Denied. Believing he has read all
the full texts of Rule 65 cases sa syllabus ni JPabs, he filed Petition for certiorari sa CA. Ayun na,
naglapse ang 15days ng wala siyang nafile na answer. Declared in default ang complainants at
pinagbayad ng damages. At bilang paghihiganti, ayan idisbar ang abodagong may obsession sa Rule 65.
SC held Atty. Fojas is guilty only of inexcusable negligence.
DOCTRINE
Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
Rule 18.03 provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Nature of the case: Disbarment
FACTS
Complainants were the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Auditor of the Far Eastern University
Faculty Association (FEUFA). They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino Salvador. The latter then
commenced with the DOLE a complaint to declare illegal his expulsion from the union which case was
decided in his favor.
Subsequently, Salvador filed with the RTC of Valenzuela, a complaint against the complainants herein
for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil
Code. As the complainants' counsel, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case on grounds of
(1) res judicata and (2) lack of jurisdiction, since what was involved was an intra-union issue cognizable
by the DOLE.
The trial court, granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon Salvador's motion for
reconsideration, however, it reconsidered the order of dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the
complainants herein to file their answer within a nonextendible period of fifteen days from notice.
Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case.
This motion having been denied, the respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari, which
was later referred to the Court of Appeals.
Although that petition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied, the respondent
still did not file the complainants' answer in the Civil Case. Hence, upon plaintiff Salvador's motion, the
complainants were declared in default, and Salvador was authorized to present his evidence ex-parte.
The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to stop the ex-parte reception of
evidence before the Clerk of Court, but to no avail.
Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the complainants herein to pay, jointly and
severally, plaintiff Salvador the amounts of P200,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages or corrective damages; and P65,000.00 as attorney's fees; plus cost of suit.
Complainants: filed this complaint for disbarment. They allege that respondent without informing them
the reason why and riding high on the trust and confidence reposed on him abandoned, failed to act
accordingly, or seriously neglected to answer the civil complaint against them so they were declared in
default.
Respondent: in his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the respondent explained his non-
filing of the required answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and
pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and excusable
neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court.
He asserts that the case was a "losing cause" for the complainants because it was based on the expulsion
of the plaintiff therein by the complainants from the Far Eastern University Faculty Association (FEUFA)
which was declared unlawful in the final decision. Thus, "[t]he unfavorable judgment in the Regional
Trial Court is not imputable to [his] mistake but rather imputable to the merits of the case.
ISSUE/S
W/N whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in
failing to file for the complainants an answer in the Civil Case.
RATIO
YES.
Whether it be "overzealousness" or "volume and pressure of legal work”, the fact remains that the
respondent did not comply with his duty to file an answer. Pressure and large volume of legal work
provide no excuse for the respondent's inability to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty
to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and, more specifically, Rule
18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that the Civil Case was in fact a "losing cause"
for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on the final decision of the Med-
Arbiter declaring the complainants' act of expelling Salvador from the union to be illegal. This claim is
a mere afterthought which hardly persuades us. If indeed the respondent was so convinced of the futility
of any defense therein, he should have seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his client, shall
give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither overstating
nor understanding the prospects of the case.
RULING
WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is guilty of inexcusable negligence and is hereby REPRIMANDED
and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
DELA CRUZ

Santiago v. Fojas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago v. Fojas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago v. Fojas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PALE 1. Santiago v.

ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, respondent.

You might also like