21. Emma v. de Juan vs. Atty. Oscar r. Baria III

EMMA V. DE JUAN vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III FACTS:

Petitioner Petitioner was terminated without notice or explanation explanation so she fled a complaint beore the NLRC against the company or illegal dismissal. In search o a lawyer she as!ed the assistance o  ""C which assigned respondent to handle her labor case. #n $ecember %& '&&& the Labor (rbiter rendered a decision in a)or o complainant. *he Company appealed to the NLRC. In a decision promulgated promulgated on +eptember %, %--' the NLRC re)ersed re)ersed the Labor (rbiter and declared there was no illegal dismissal. Complainant blamed respondent or the re)ersal. +he said that she came to !now o the re)ersal o the Labor (rbiters decision when she called respondent in #ctober %--'. /hen she as!ed the respondent what they should do respondent answered 0Paano iyan iha1eh1hindi a!o marunong gumawa ng 2otion or Reconsideration.3 ISSUE: /hether the respondent committed culpable negligence as would warrant disciplinary action in ailing to fle or the complainant a motion or reconsideration rom the decision o the NLRC.

RULING: Respon esponden dentt is 4IN5$ 4IN5$ with with /(RNIN6 (RNIN6 that that a repet repetiti ition on o the same same will will be dealt dealt with with se)erely.

No lawyer is obliged to ad)ocate or e)ery person who may wish to become his client but once he agrees to ta!e up the cause o a client the lawyer owes fdelity to such cause and must be mindul o the trust and confdence reposed in him. 4urther among the undamental rules o  ethics is the principle that an attorney who underta!es an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination that is until the case becomes fnal and executory. ( lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his ser)ices without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. (ny dereliction o duty by a counsel a7ects the client. *his means that his client is entitled to the beneft o any and e)ery remedy and deense that is authori8ed by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert e)ery such remedy or deense.  *he records re)eal that indeed the respondent respondent did not fle a motion or reconsideration o  the NLRC such that the said decision e)entually had become fnal and executory. Respondent does not reute this. 9is excuse that he did not !now how to fle a motion or reconsideration is lame lame and unacce unaccepta ptable ble.. (ter (ter compla complaina inant nt had expr express essed ed an inter interest est to fle a motion motion or recons econside idera ratio tion n it was was incumb incumbent ent upon upon couns counsel el to dilig diligent ently ly retur return n to his boo!s boo!s and re re amiliari8e himsel with the procedural rules or a motion or reconsideration. 4iling a motion or reconsideration reconsideration is not a complicated legal tas!. (n attorney may only retire rom the case either by a written consent o his client or by permission permission o the court ater due notice and hearing in which e)ent the attorney should see to it that the name o the new attorney is recorded recorded in the case. Respondent Respondent did not comply with these obligations. 0Negligence o lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them or handling shall render them liable.3