MARCIANO P. BRION, JR., vs. FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR.

,
A.C. No. 5305, March 17, 2003

FACTS:

Complainant Brion, Jr. charges respondent Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr., of having willfully violated a
lawful order of this Court in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 whereby Respondent was dismissed from service with
forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and with prejudice to reappointment in the government, including
GOCCs. Respondent’s dismissal was ordered after he was found guilty of Gross Immorality and Appearance
of Impropriety during his incumbency as presiding judge. Petitioner now avers that respondent violated the
decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon him from assuming any post in government service when
he accepted a legal consultancy post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). respondent admits
the existence of the Legal Consultancy Contract as well as the Special Consultancy Contract. However, he
raises the affirmative defense that under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 27,
Series of 1993, services rendered pursuant to a consultancy contract shall not be considered government
services, and therefore, are not covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. The IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline found that respondent willfully violated a lawful order of this Court and recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year and fined ten thousand (P10,000) pesos.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent Brillantes violated the decree of perpetual disqualification from
assuming post in government service

RULING: YES

The Court held that an adviser does not exercise supervisory powers over LWUA employees nor does
he issue written instructions to them. An adviser is not entitled to a seat in such vital LWUA committees like
PBAC and the BOT Committee. Also, respondent’s continuous receipt of honoraria for sitting as a member of
certain LWUA Committees belies his claim that he is a mere consultant for the LWUA. In sum, respondent
performed duties and functions of a non-advisory nature, which pertain to a contractual employee of LWUA.
By performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain to a contractual employee, albeit in the guise of an
advisor or consultant, respondent has transgressed both letter and spirit of this Courts decree in Atienza.

The lawyers primary duty as enunciated in the Attorneys Oath is to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails
obedience to the legal orders of the courts. Respondents disobedience to this Courts order prohibiting his
reappointment to any branch, instrumentality, or agency of government, including government owned and
controlled corporations, cannot be camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a special consultancy contract. By
performing duties and functions of a contractual employee of LWUA, by way of a consultancy, and receiving
compensation and perquisites as such, he displayed acts of open defiance of the Courts authority, and a
deliberate rejection of his oath as an officer of the court. It is also destructive of the harmonious relations that
should prevail between Bench and Bar, a harmony necessary for the proper administration of justice. Such
defiance not only erodes respect for the Court but also corrodes public confidence in the rule of law.

The Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01, provides that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For violating the Code as well as transgressing his oath as
an officer of the court, his suspension for one (1) year and a fine of ten thousand (P10,000) pesos are in order.

Failure to file on appeal on time resulting to loss of case for client

Applicable law:

Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly provide:
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there
with shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to client’s request for information.

Explanation:

REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ vs. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO

The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence.
In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise
the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a
high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

A lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the
counsel’s care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any
court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings,
prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the
client or the court to prod him or her to do so.

Conversely, a lawyer’s negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action. While such
negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyer’s
mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation.

Thus, the relationship between a lawyer and her client is regarded as highly fiduciary. Between the
lawyer and the client, it is the lawyer that has the better knowledge of facts, events, and remedies. While it is
true that the client chooses which lawyer to engage, he or she usually does so on the basis of reputation. It is
only upon actual engagement that the client discovers the level of diligence, competence, and accountability
of the counsel that he or she chooses. In some cases, such as this one, the discovery comes too late. Between
the lawyer and the client, therefore, it is the lawyer that should bear the full costs of indifference or negligence.

SPOUSES VICENTE and PRECYWINDA GIMENA vs. ATTY. JOJO S. VIJIGA

As a lawyer, respondent is presumed to be knowledgeable of the procedural rules in appellate practice.

He is presumed to know that dismissal is an inevitable result from failure to file the requisite brief within the
period stated in the Rules of Court. In this case, the fact that the appeal was twice dismissed further highlights
respondent's indifference to his client's cause. Interestingly, respondent failed to offer any explanation as to
why he failed to submit the appellants' brief within the 45-day period from his receipt of the notice to file the
same, resulting to the dismissal of the appeal for the first time. To the mind of this Court, such failure is an
unequivocal indication of his guilt in the administrative charge. Indeed, failure to file the required pleadings is
per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as cited above.

His failure to file the appellants' brief, despite the CA's grant of leniency in reconsidering its initial
dismissal of the appeal. In this case, respondent's neglect of his professional duties led to the loss of
complainants' properties and has left them bereft of legal remedies. They lost their case not because of merits
but because of technicalities, specifically the respondent's failure to file the required pleadings. Certainly, the
situation in the case at bar, is one such evil that the CPR intended to avoid.

Worse, respondent's failure to inform complainants of the unfortunate fate of their appeal further
amplifies his lack of competence and diligence. As an officer of the court, it was respondent's duty to inform
his client of whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his client's case. The purpose of
informing the client is to minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. The
lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client's interests.
 True, for respondent's failure to protect the interest of complainants, respondent indeed violated
Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is reminded that the practice
of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and
morally. The penalty to be meted to an erring lawyer rests on sound judicial discretion. In this case, the fact
that the complaining parties now stand to lose eight parcels of land which they claim to own due to respondent's
failure to perform his professional and ethical duties, We deemed justified the suspension of respondent from
the practice of law for six months.