LEGARDA VS CAFACTS

: Petitioner Victoria Legarda was theowner of a parcel of land and the

improvementslocated at 123 West Avenue, Quezon City. On January 11, 1985 respondent
New Cathay House,Inc. filed a complaint against the petitioner forspecific
performance with preliminary injunctionand damages in RTC alleging that
petitionerentered into a lease agreement with the privaterespondent through its
representative, Roberto V.Cabrera, Jr., of the aforestated property of petitioner.
Respondent drew up the writtencontract and sent it to petitioner, that
petitionerfailed and refused to execute and sign the samedespite demands of
respondent.Petitioner engaged the services of counsel tohandle her case. Said
counsel filed hisappearance with an urgent motion for extensionof time to file the
answer within ten (10) daysfrom February 26, 1985. However, said counselfailed to
file the answer within the extendedperiod prayed for. Counsel for private
respondentfiled an
ex-parte
motion to declare petitioner indefault. This was granted by the trial court onMarch
25, 1985 and private respondent wasallowed to present evidence
ex-parte
. Thereafter,on March 25, 1985, the trial court rendered itsdecision.Said counsel
for petitioner received a copy of the judgment but took no steps to have the same
setaside or to appeal therefrom. Thus, the judgmentbecame final and executory. The
property of petitioner was sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment in favor
of private respondent. Theproperty was sold to Roberto V. Cabrera,
Jr.,representative of private respondent, and acertificate of sale was issued in
his favor. Theredemption period expired after one year so afinal deed of sale was
issued by the sheriff infavor of Cabrera, who in turn appears to havetransferred
the same to private respondent.During all the time, the petitioner was abroad.When,
upon her return, she learned, to her greatshock, what happened to her case and
property,she nevertheless did not lose faith in her counsel.She still asked Atty.
Coronel to take suchappropriate action possible under thecircumstances.As above
related, said counsel filed a petition forannulment of judgment and its amendment
in theCourt of Appeals. But that was all he did. After anadverse judgment was
rendered againstpetitioner, of which counsel was duly notified,said counsel did not
inform the petitioner aboutit. He did not even ask for a reconsiderationthereof, or
file a petition for review before thisCourt. Thus, the judgment became final. It
wasonly upon repeated telephone inquiries of petitioner that she learned from the
secretary of her counsel of the judgment that hadunfortunately become final.
HELD
: A lawyer owes entire devotion to theinterest of his client, warmth and zeal in
themaintenance and defense of his rights and theexertion of his utmost learning and
ability, to theend that nothing can be taken or withheld fromhis client except in
accordance with the law. Heshould present every remedy or defenseauthorized by the
law in support of his client'scause, regardless of his own personal views. Inthe
full discharge of his duties to his client, thelawyer should not be afraid of the
possibility thathe may displease the judge or the general public.
12
Judged by the actuations of said counsel in thiscase, he has miserably failed in
his duty toexercise his utmost learning and ability inmaintaining his client's
cause.
13
It is not only acase of simple negligence as found by theappellate court, but of
reckless and grossnegligence, so much so that his client wasdeprived of her
property without due process of law. The Court finds that the negligence of counsel
inthis case appears to be so gross and inexcusable. This was compounded by the
fact, that afterpetitioner gave said counsel another chance tomake up for his
omissions by asking him to file apetition for annulment of the judgment in
theappellate court, again counsel abandoned thecase of petitioner in that after he
received a copyof the adverse judgment of the appellate court,he did not do
anything to save the situation orinform his client of the judgment. He allowed the
judgment to lapse and become final. Suchreckless and gross negligence should not
beallowed to bind the petitioner. Petitioner wasthereby effectively deprived of her
day in court. Thus, We have before Us a case where to enforcean alleged lease
agreement of the property of petitioner, private respondent went to court, andthat
because of the gross negligence of thecounsel for the petitioner, she lost the case
aswell as the title and ownership of the property,which is worth millions. The mere
lessee thennow became the owner of the property. Its trueowner then, the
petitioner, now is consigned topenury all because her lawyer appear to
haveabandoned her case not once but repeatedly