Alcantara vs. Salas

Eduardo Alcantara vs. Atty.
Samuel Salas
A.C. No. 3989. December 10, 2019
Facts:
On March 16, 1993, the complainant Alcantara filed an amended sworn letter-
complaint against his counsel, respondent Atty. Samuel Salas, for unethical,
unprofessional, and corrupt practices. Allegedly, on May 19, 1980, Eduardo hired Atty.
Salas in filing a civil action for specific action with damages. However, the trial court did
not decide in their favor. Atty. Salas then appealed to the CA on April 26, 1990. That
was the last time the complainant heard from the respondent.
In July 1992, Eduardo found out that his appeal was dismissed, and upon
inquiring with the CA, he discovered that the reason for the dismissal of his appeal was
due to the non-filing of appellant’s brief despite several notice to Atty. Salas. Allegedly,
the notices were returned unclaimed because the addressee has moved.
Eduardo then informed Atty. Salas of the dismissal. However, Atty. Salas blamed
Eduardo for not checking the status of the case and for losing communication with him.
Eduardo denied Atty. Salas’ allegation reasoning that Atty. Salas sent a messenger to
Eduardo in claiming a check of P5,000.
A new lawyer was hired by Eduardo to continue his case, which rendered an
unfavorable decision. Eduardo blamed Atty. Salas for the loss of his case, which led to
the filing of this complaint.
In defense, Atty. Salas averred that it was the CA’s duty to send notices to his
former address that was indicated in the two prior cases that was consolidated with a
third one. However, Atty. Salas admits that he did not notify the CA of his change of
address in the third case.
The case was then referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.
After conducting a hearing with both parties, the IBP Investigating Commissioner
issued a report and recommendation finding Atty. Salas to have violated Rule 12.03 of
the CPR, which mandates a lawyer to submit a brief or memoranda when required by
the court. He also failed to inform the court of the change in his address in order to
maintain the line of communication with the court.
Having failed his duty under the CPR, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for 4 months. The IBP
Board of Governors issued a Resolution that suspended Atty. Salas from the practice of
law for two months, with a stern warning that the repetition will result to a more severe
penalty.
Atty. Salas moved for reconsideration but was denied by the IBP Board of
Governors in a Resolution. In the same resolution, the IBP Board of Governors modified
their previous resolution and suspended Atty. Salas for two years.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Salas committed gross negligence in failing to file the
appellant's brief in the CA.
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Salas committed gross negligence in failing to file the appellant's brief
in the CA.
In addition to the IBP's finding of violation of Rule 12.03 of the CPR, the Court
finds other violations, such as Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 on a lawyer's duty to
his/her client.
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 therewith shall render him liable.
It is crystal clear that the root cause of non-filing of appellant’s brief was Atty.
Salas’ failure to inform the CA of the change in his mailing address. Had he done so, he
would have received the CA’s notices requiring him to file the appellant’s brief. Had he
been diligent in his duty, Alcantara’s appeal would not have been dismissed. There is
no one to blame but Atty. Salas, because as a handling lawyer and officer of the court,
he must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client. In a similar
case, De Borja v. Atty. Mendez, Jr., 870 SCRA 376 (2018), the Court discussed
lengthily the significance of a lawyer’s duty to his/her client to file a pleading promptly. In
the cited case, the Court suspended the lawyer from the practice of law for failing to
fulfill the mandate of the canons.
In another case, Abiero v. Juanino, 452 SCRA 1 (2005), the Court imposed the
penalty of six-month suspension after finding the respondent lawyer guilty of negligence
and for violating Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR. Failure to appeal to the Court of
Appeals despite instructions by the client to do so constitutes inexcusable negligence
on the part of counsel. Once a lawyer consents to defend the cause of his client, he
owes fidelity to such cause and must at all times be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. He is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and
perform his duties to his client with utmost diligence. Nothing less can be expected from
a member of the Philippine Bar. For having neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by
his client, respondent did not serve his client with diligence and competence. His
inexcusable negligence on such matter renders him liable for violation of Canons 17
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Samuel M. Salas is found GUILTY of violating
Rule 12.03 of Canon 12, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months, effective upon the receipt of this decision. He is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Alcantara vs. Salas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alcantara vs. Salas

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Alcantara vs. Salas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eduardo Alcantara vs. Atty.

You might also like