A.M. No. 249. November 21, 1978. TOMAS ALCORIZA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALBERTO LUMAKANG and ATTY. PABLO SALAZAR, respondents.
FACTS:

This is an administrative complaint for disciplinary action filed by Tomas Alcoriza against his attorneys, Atty. Alberto Lumakang and Atty. Pablo Salazar. The case stemmed from a civil case for sum of money filed against Alcoriza in the Municipal Court of Davao City. The court rendered a judgment against Alcoriza, ordering him to pay the plaintiffs, after a trial conducted in his and his counsels’ absence despite due notice.
The investigation, referred to the Solicitor General and subsequently to the City Attorney of Davao, revealed that Atty. Salazar had ceased active handling of the case, with Atty. Lumakang taking over. On the day of the trial, Lumakang did not appear in court. He explained that he waited in his office for his client, Alcoriza, to arrive so they could go to court together, but Alcoriza never appeared. Lumakang stated he decided not to go to court because he was unprepared and believed it would be useless without his client, whom he suspected had lost interest in the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Alberto Lumakang and Atty. Pablo Salazar should be held administratively liable for their failure to appear at the trial of their client’s case.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Solicitor General. Atty. Pablo Salazar was exonerated. The records showed he had relinquished active handling of the case to Atty. Lumakang well before the trial date, thus he bore no responsibility for the incident.
Atty. Alberto Lumakang was found administratively liable, though not to a grave degree. The Court agreed with the investigating authority that Lumakang’s reason for non-appearance—waiting for his uninterested client—was not wholly laudable or sufficient. A lawyer’s duty to the court and to his client requires diligence and the protection of the client’s interest, even in the face of the client’s own neglect. Lumakang should have appeared in court to seek a postponement, explain the circumstances, or otherwise take steps to safeguard his client’s legal position. His failure to do so constituted a neglect of duty that tends to diminish public trust in the legal profession.
However, the Court considered the mitigating circumstance of the client’s own demonstrated lack of interest in his case, as noted in the investigation report. This lack of interest did not absolve Lumakang but made the infraction less serious. Consequently, the Court dismissed the case against Salazar and reprimanded Atty. Lumakang, with an admonition to be more careful and diligent in attending to his clients’ cases in the future.