CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________

A.C. No. 9387.  June 20, 2012.*

(Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1562)
EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY.
VENANCIO B. PADILLA, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Attorney-Client Relationships;

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s
cause; Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer’s
duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.—
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s
cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer’s
duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.
Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Padilla

Same; Same; Lawyers are expected to be in the forefront in the

observance and maintenance of the rule of law—this duty carries
with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and
to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence.—The obligations of lawyers as a consequence of
their Canon 5 duty have been expounded in Dulalia, Jr. v. Cruz,
522 SCRA 244 (2007), to wit: It must be emphasized that the
primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are
expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance
of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be
well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is
imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles.
Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be
able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as
members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to
committing mistakes.
Same; Same; The supposed lack of time given to respondent to
acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his
negligence; A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.—The supposed lack of time given to
respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not
excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a
lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation. While it is true that respondent was not
complainant’s lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage,
this fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently study a
case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough
time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was
approached by complainant’s husband only two days before the
expiration of the period for filing the Appellant’s Brief, respondent
should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper
pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come up with, just
to “beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.”
Same; Same; Respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform
his clients of the status of their case.—Respondent, as counsel, had
the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His
failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code,
which reads: 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status

VOL. 674, JUNE 20, 2012 3

Hernandez vs. Padilla

of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the

client’s request for information.
Same; Same; Negligence; The failure of respondent to file the
proper pleading and a comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is
negligence on his part; Lawyers should not neglect legal matters
entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their
duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.—The
failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on
Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part. Under 18.03
of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the
client’s case, viz.: Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. Lawyers should not neglect
legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in
fulfilling their duty would render them liable for disciplinary
action.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
  Antonio Salanura for complainant.

RESOLUTION

SERENO,  J.:
This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez
(complainant) against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B.
Padilla (respondent) of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law
Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling of her
case.
The records disclose that complainant and her husband
were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against
them with the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC).
In a Decision1 dated 28 June 2002, penned by Judge
Rosmari D. Carandang (Judge Carandang), the RTC
ordered that

_______________
1 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 14-24.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Padilla

the Deed of Sale executed in favor of complainant be

cancelled; and that the latter pay the complainant therein,
Elisa Duigan (Duigan), attorney’s fees and moral damages.
Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of
Appeal with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals
(CA) ordered them to file their Appellants’ Brief. They
chose respondent to represent them in the case. On their
behalf, he filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an
Appellants’ Brief. Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Appeal. The CA granted the Motion in a Resolution2
dated 16 December 2003.
 No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution
dismissing the appeal was filed by the couple. Complainant
claims that because respondent ignored the Resolution, he
acted with “deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to
malpractice of law.”3 Complainant and her husband failed
to file an appeal, because respondent never informed them
of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims that
she asked respondent “several times” about the status of
the appeal, but “despite inquiries he deliberately withheld
response [sic],” to the damage and prejudice of the
spouses.4
The Resolution became final and executory on 8 January
2004. Complainant was informed of the Resolution
sometime in July 2005, when the Sheriff of the RTC came
to her house and informed her of the Resolution.
On 9 September 2005, complainant filed an Affidavit of
Complaint5 with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking the
disbarment of respondent on the following grounds: deceit,
malpractice, and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for
moral damages in the amount of P350,000.

_______________
2 Id., at pp. 43-44.
3 Id., at p. 1.
4 Id.
5 Id., at pp. 1-2.

VOL. 674, JUNE 20, 2012 5

Hernandez vs. Padilla

Through an Order6 dated 12 September 2005, Director

of Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent to
submit an answer to the Complaint. In his Counter-
Affidavit/Answer,7 respondent prayed for the outright
dismissal of the Complaint.
Respondent explained that he was not the lawyer of
complainant. He averred that prior to the mandatory
conference set by the IBP on 13 December 2005, he had
never met complainant, because it was her husband who
had personally transacted with him. According to
respondent, the husband “despondently pleaded to me to
prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because according to
him the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or
three days.”8 Thus, respondent claims that he filed a
Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed that
“it is this pleading which was required.”9
Before filing the Memorandum, respondent advised
complainant’s husband to settle the case. The latter
allegedly “gestured approval of the advice.”10
After the husband of complainant picked up the
Memorandum for filing, respondent never saw or heard
from him again and thus assumed that the husband heeded
his advice and settled the case. When respondent received
an Order from the CA requiring him to file a comment on
the Motion to Dismiss filed by Duigan, he “instructed his
office staff to contact Mr. Hernandez thru available means
of communication, but to no avail.”11 Thus, when
complainant’s husband went to the office of respondent to
tell the latter that the Sheriff of the RTC had informed
complainant of the CA’s Resolution dismissing the

_______________
6  Id., at p. 45.
7  Id., at pp. 52-56.
8  Id., at p. 53.
9  Id., at p. 54.
10 Id.
11 Id.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Padilla

case, respondent was just as surprised. The lawyer

exclaimed, “KALA KO BA NAKIPAG AREGLO NA
KAYO.”12
In his 5 January 2009 Report,13 IBP Investigating
Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found that
respondent violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (the Code). He recommended
that respondent be suspended from practicing law from 3 to
6 months.
The board of governors of the IBP issued Resolution No.
XIX-2010-452 on 28 August 2010. Therein, they resolved to
adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. Respondent was suspended
from the practice of law for six months.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration.14 He
prayed for the relaxation of the application of the Canons of
the Code. On 14 January 2012, the IBP board of governors
passed Resolution No. XX-2012-1715 partly granting his
Motion and reducing the penalty imposed to one-month
suspension from the practice of law.
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, acting
Director for Bar Discipline Dennis A.B. Funa, through a
letter16 addressed to then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona,
transmitted the documents pertaining to the disbarment
Complaint against respondent.
We adopt the factual findings of the board of governors
of the IBP. This Court, however, disagrees with its Decision
to reduce the penalty to one-month suspension. We thus
affirm the six-month suspension the Board originally
imposed in its 28 August 2010 Resolution.

_______________
12 Id.
13 Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 2-15.
14 Id., at pp. 16-20.
15 Rollo, Vol. II (page not indicated).
16 Id.

VOL. 674, JUNE 20, 2012 7

Hernandez vs. Padilla

Respondent insists that he had never met complainant

prior to the mandatory conference set for the disbarment
Complaint she filed against him. However, a perusal of the
Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court
revealed that he had signed as counsel for the defendant-
appellants therein, including complainant and her
husband.17 The pleading starts with the following sentence:
“DEFENDANT[S]-APPELLANTS, by counsel, unto this
Honorable Court submit the Memorandum and further
allege that: x x x.”18 Nowhere does the document say that it
was filed only on behalf of complainant’s husband.
It is further claimed by respondent that the relation
created between him and complainant’s husband cannot be
treated as a “client-lawyer” relationship, viz.:

It is no more than a client needing a legal document and

had it prepared by a lawyer for a fee. Under the factual
milieu and circumstances, it could not be said that a client
entrusted to a lawyer handling and prosecution of his case
that calls for the strict application of the Code; x x x19
 As proof that none of them ever intended to enter into a
lawyer-client relationship, he also alleges that
complainant’s husband never contacted him after the filing
of the Memorandum of Appeal. According to respondent,
this behavior was “very unusual if he really believed that
he engaged” the former’s services.20
Complainant pointed out in her Reply21 that respondent
was her lawyer, because he accepted her case and an
acceptance fee in the amount of P7,000.

_______________
17 See Rollo, Vol. I, p. 39.
18 Id., at p. 25.
19 Rollo, Vol. II, p. 18.
20 Id., at p. 19.
21 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 76-77.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Padilla

According to respondent, however, “[C]ontrary to the

complainant’s claim that he charged P7,000 as acceptance
fee,” “the fee was only for the preparation of the pleading
which is even low for a Memorandum of Appeal: x x x.”22
cceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelity to the client’s cause.23 Once a lawyer agrees to
handle a case, it is that lawyer’s duty to serve the client
with competence and diligence.24 Respondent has failed to
fulfill this duty.
According to respondent, he merely drafted the pleading
that complainant’s husband asked from him. Respondent
also claims that he filed a Memorandum of Appeal, because
he “honestly believed” that this was the pleading required,
based on what complainant’s husband said.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner’s observation on
this matter, in the 5 January 2009 Report, is correct.
Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have
believed to be necessary, it was respondent’s duty to know
the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC
decisions, viz.:

Having seen the Decision dated 18 June 2002 of the trial

court, respondent should have known that the mode of
appeal to the Court of Appeals for said Decision is by
ordinary appeal under Section 2(a) Rule 41 of the 1997
 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. In all such cases, Rule 44
of the said Rules applies.25

When the RTC ruled against complainant and her

husband, they filed a Notice of Appeal. Consequently, what
should apply is the rule on ordinary appealed cases or Rule
44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Rule 44 requires that
the appellant’s brief be filed after the records of the case
have

_______________
22 Rollo, Vol. II, p. 18.
23 Fernandez v. Atty. Cabrera, 463 Phil. 352; 418 SCRA 1 (2003).
24 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18.
25 Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 9-10.

VOL. 674, JUNE 20, 2012 9

Hernandez vs. Padilla

been elevated to the CA. Respondent, as a litigator, was

expected to know this procedure. Canon 5 of the Code
reads:

CANON 5 — A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,

participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating
information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

The obligations of lawyers as a consequence of their

Canon 5 duty have been expounded in Dulalia, Jr. v.
Cruz,26 to wit:

It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey

the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the
observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries
with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and
to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic
legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty,
they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their
obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become
susceptible to committing mistakes.

In his MR, respondent begged for the consideration of

the IBP, claiming that the reason for his failure to file the
proper pleading was that he “did not have enough time to
acquaint himself thoroughly with the factual milieu of the
case.” The IBP reconsidered and thereafter significantly
reduced the penalty originally imposed.
Respondent’s plea for leniency should not have been
granted.

_______________
26 A.C. No. 6854, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 244, 255 citing Santiago v.
Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, 483 Phil. 94, 105; 440 SCRA 91, 100-101 (2004).

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Padilla

  The supposed lack of time given to respondent to

acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse
his negligence.
Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
While it is true that respondent was not complainant’s
lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact
did not excuse him from his duty to diligently study a case
he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough
time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was
approached by complainant’s husband only two days before
the expiration of the period for filing the Appellant’s Brief,
respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time
to file the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he
could come up with, just to “beat the deadline set by the
Court of Appeals.”27
Moreover, respondent does not deny that he was given
notice of the fact that he filed the wrong pleading.
However, instead of explaining his side by filing a
comment, as ordered by the appellate court, he chose to
ignore the CA’s Order. He claims that he was under the
presumption that complainant and her husband had
already settled the case, because he had not heard from the
husband since the filing of the latter’s Memorandum of
Appeal.
This explanation does not excuse respondent’s actions.
First of all, there were several remedies that respondent
could have availed himself of, from the moment he received
the Notice from the CA to the moment he received the
disbarment Complaint filed against him. But because of his
negligence, he chose to sit on the case and do nothing.
 Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform
his clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so
amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code, which
reads:

_______________
27 Rollo, Vol. II, p. 18.

11

VOL. 674, JUNE 20, 2012 11

Hernandez vs. Padilla

18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the

status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client’s request for information.
If it were true that all attempts to contact his client
proved futile, the least respondent could have done was to
inform the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of
Appearance as counsel. He could have thus explained why
he was no longer the counsel of complainant and her
husband in the case and informed the court that he could
no longer contact them.28 His failure to take this measure
proves his negligence.
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper
pleading and a comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is
negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is
liable for negligence in handling the client’s case, viz.:

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to

them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty
would render them liable for disciplinary action.29
Respondent has failed to live up to his duties as a
lawyer. When a lawyer violates his duties to his client, he
engages in

_______________
28 “Sec.  26.  Change of attorneys.—An attorney may retire at any time
from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client
filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special
proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to
the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly
employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former
one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.”
(Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 26)
29 Perea v. Atty. Almadro, 447 Phil. 434; 399 SCRA 322, 327 (2003).

12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Padilla

unethical and unprofessional conduct for which he should

be held accountable.30
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is
found guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04, as well
as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX
(6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered into the personal
records of respondent as a member of the bar and furnished
to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of
the country for their information and guidance.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Perez and Reyes, JJ.,

concur.

Atty. Venancio B. Padilla suspended from practice of law

for six (6) months for violation of Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04
and Canon 5 of Code of Professional Responsibility, with
stern warning against repetition of similar offense.

Notes.—The fact that there is no attorney-client

relationship and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield
respondent, as a lawyer, from liability. (Mendoza vs.
Deciembre, 580 SCRA 26 [2009])
Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship
existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may
be removed, or otherwise disciplined, not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, but also for
gross miscon-

_______________
30 Fernandez, supra note 23.
 13

VOL. 674, JUNE 20, 2012 13

Hernandez vs. Padilla

duct not connected with his professional duties, making

him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges
which his license and the law confer upon him. (Barcenas
vs. Alvero, 619 SCRA 1 [2010])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.