SC suspends Cebu lawyer for not attending client’s court hearings
Facade of the Supreme Court building in Manila
CEBU CITY — The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a Cebu-based lawyer for failing to attend court hearings which resulted in the dismissal of his client’s case.
Lawyer Dindo Antonio Perez was ordered to stop performing his legal duties once he receives the high court’s resolution.
Court Administrator Raul Villanueva, in a circular dated June 29 and secured by Inquirer on July 11, has informed all trial courts in the country about Perez’s suspension.
Perez was also warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
According to the high court, lawyer-client relationship is “fiduciary in nature or imbued with utmost trust and confidence.”
Article continues after this advertisement“[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,” the SC said in a resolution.
Article continues after this advertisement“The lawyer’s duty to keep his clients constantly updated on the developments of their case is crucial in maintaining the fiduciary nature of their relationship. Nevertheless, Atty. Perez left his client groping in the dark. Atty. Perez did not inform his client of the status of the case,” it added.
“(His client) had to inquire from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) otherwise he would not have known about the dismissal of the complaint. Verily, a lawyer need not wait for his clients to ask for information but must advise them without delay about matters essential for them to avail of legal remedies.”
The Inquirer tried to get Perez’s statement through Messenger on Tuesday but he has yet to respond.
On May 9, 2002, Perez’s client Danilo Sanchez filed a complaint against another person for annulment of contract, recovery of possession of real property, and damages at the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Sanchez went back to the United States where he resides.
On Dec. 10, 2003, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of Perez to appear during the pre-trial conference scheduled on the same day. Perez sought reconsideration and the RTC rescheduled the pre-trial twice.
However, the lawyer still failed to show up, prompting the court to dismiss the complaint.
Sanchez asked Perez for updates on the status of the proceedings, but the petitioner did not get any response from the lawyer.
In October 2008, Sanchez’s cousin, Leonidas, talked to Perez and asked about the case. However, Leonidas did not get a clear answer. Sanchez and Leonidas inquired from the RTC and learned that the case had been dismissed.
This prompted Sanchez to file a complaint against Perez.
Perez, in response to the complaint, denied the accusations and argued that he had been diligent in handling the case. He stated that he appeared in court on November 23, 2004, for the presentation of the complainant’s evidence but the hearing was reset for lack of material time.
He claimed that he had informed Sanchez of his desire to withdraw as counsel. Perez said he even signed notices of withdrawal and sent them with the records of the case to Sanchez so he could facilitate the hiring of new counsel.
However, the SC did not give credence to Perez’s claims.
According to the high court, court records show that Perez did not attend the pre-trial conference on December 10, 2003, resulting in the dismissal of the case.
“Atty. Perez did not even offer any explanation to justify his absence at the scheduled hearings. On this point, Atty. Perez exhibited carelessness in handling his client’s cause. Atty. Perez should have been more circumspect to send a substitute counsel to appear on his behalf instead of leaving the proceedings unattended in view of its adverse consequence that is the dismissal of the case,” the SC said.
The SC said Perez’s argument that he had informed Sanchez of his desire to withdraw as counsel does not excuse him from his negligence.
“A lawyer may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing. An attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case,” it said.
“Atty. Perez betrayed this procedure. Atty. Perez did not file a notice of withdrawal as counsel before the RTC. Sanchez did not even consent to Atty. Perez’s supposed withdrawal. As such, Atty. Perez remained the counsel of record who is expected to perform what the interests of his client require,” it added.
RELATED STORY
Negligent lawyer suspended by SC | Inquirer 黑料社
