Lopez v.

Aquino

Facts: Mrs. Lopez as judicial administratrix of the Estate wished to file a

motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's judgment, rendering a
decision in favor of respondent, and that the clerk of court be directed to
serve copy of said judgment on her counsel instead of on Atty.
Unson as the former special administrator's counsel "for purposes of
starting of time to move for re-hearing or reconsideration;"

Pursuant to said information, petitioner caused to be filed, with the appellate

court an "Appearance with Motions for Substitution and to be
served with a copy of the Judgment,"

Upon due opposition of respondent on the ground of finality of the judgment,

the appellate court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration

No further move was made by petitioner thereafter until almost five months
later, after respondent had filed in the intestate court a motion for execution
of the judgment, as affirmed in his favor by the appellate court, it filed the
present petition.

The Court, upon urgent supplemental petition of petitioner, further issued,

upon a P1,000.00 bond, a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining
enforcement, through sale of the estate's properties, of the appellate court's
judgment.

Issue: Whether Atty. Jose A. Unson, counsel of former special administratrix,

Asuncion Domingo Sta. Maria and co-special administrator, Atty. Luis
Domingo, Jr. of the estate, was effectively withdrawn as counsel for the Estate

Ruling: The court finds no merit in the petition.

The records at bar amply show that Atty. Jose A. Unson was the counsel on
record of the petitioner estate in the appellate court and never filed any
withdrawal as such counsel. He continued on record in the appellate court as
counsel for the estate as appellant therein and did not file therein any
withdrawal as counsel and neither did the petitioner inform said court of any
change of counsel or of party-administrator, as required by Rule 138, section
26 of the Rules of Court. More so, no appearance of any new counsel for the
estate was ever filed with the appellate court.
Notice and copy of the appellate court's decision of January 20, 1967, were
therefore duly served by registered mail on the estate's counsel of record at his
address of record in accordance with Rule 13, section 8 of the Rules of Court

The present administratrix gives no satisfactory explanation as to her failure

to substitute herself vice Luis Domingo, Jr., since the latter's removal when
she became the sole administrator, or to then engage new counsel vice Atty.
Unson in the appellate court.

The cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the
court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. There must be more faithful
adherence to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of Court which provided that “the signature of
an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is good ground to support it; and that it
is not interposed for delay” and expressly admonishes that “for a willful violation of this
rule, an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary action.”

WHEREFORE, the petition is ordered dismissed and petitioner's counsel shall

pay treble costs.

Abayvs.Montesino,417SCRA77
Complainant avers that the Negros Institute of Technology (NIT), of which he is a
stockholder, hired respondent as counsel in an action for “Cancellation of Title of
Ownership, Recovery of Ownership and Possession and Damages with Preliminary
Injunction” against the estate of Vicente T. Galo.

The RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the civil case. Respondent’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the judgment of dismissal was denied by the trial court.
Although respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA, he thereafter failed to
submit an appellant’s brief. Consequently, in a Resolution, the CA dismissed the
appeal with admonition.

Complainant thus prayed that respondent be duly sanctioned with disbarment.

Respondent denied that he was negligent in his duty as counsel of NIT. According to
him, while the case was pending appeal, he discovered that the property that it was
seeking to recover had been the subject of another case, which was for “Annulment
of Sale, Deed of Donation, Cancellation of Titles and Damages.”

Believing that the heirs of Vicente Galo had already validly transferred to another
party the ownership of the property that the NIT was seeking to recover,
respondent felt that to pursue the appeal would be “dilatory, expensive, frivolous
and taxing [to] the precious time of the [CA].”
Investigating IBP Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility stating that “if respondent actually believed [that] it
was futile to pursue [the appeal], why did he request from the Court of Appeals
numerous extensions of time to file x x x the same within the given extension
periods? Also, it should be noted that respondent admits that after he advised NIT
and herein complainant [about] the futility of pursuing the appeal, the latter
expressed the wish to continue with [the appeal]. At the very least, respondent
should have given due importance to the decision of his client to avail of a legal
remedy available to it under the legal system.”

Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors: adopting the Report and

Recommendation of the investigating commissioner.”

Issuer: Whether there is a violation of Rule 18.04

The Court’s Ruling: We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

“Once [a lawyer] agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must
serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.