A.C. No. 2736; May 27, 1991
Lorenzana Food Corporation, represented by Solomon U. Lorenzana, Jr. and/or Elizabeth L. Diaz, petitioners, vs. Atty. Francisco L. Daria, respondent.

FACTS

The respondent, Atty. Francisco L. Daria, was administratively charged with negligence and betrayal of client confidences. As the legal counsel and personnel manager of complainant Lorenzana Food Corporation (LFC), he handled a labor case filed by employee Violeta Hanopol for illegal dismissal. Respondent failed to appear at a scheduled hearing on June 28, 1983, having only attempted a telephonic postponement through his secretary, which failed to reach the Labor Arbiter. Consequently, the case was submitted for decision based solely on Hanopol’s evidence, resulting in a default judgment against LFC. Respondent filed a belated appeal, and the case was remanded. However, after resigning from LFC in June 1984, he endorsed the case to a new counsel. Subsequent hearings proceeded without LFC’s representation, leading the Labor Arbiter to revive the earlier adverse decision.
Regarding the second charge, while still LFC’s counsel, respondent was involved in an internal investigation concerning employee Roberto San Juan for alleged unliquidated cash advances. He was furnished confidential memoranda on the matter and even placed San Juan under preventive suspension. After resigning from LFC, respondent assisted San Juan, who was then facing an estafa complaint filed by LFC, by preparing and signing his counter-affidavit submitted to the Provincial Fiscal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Daria is administratively liable for negligence in handling a client’s case and for betrayal of his former client’s confidences.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty on both counts. On the charge of negligence, his failure to file a written motion for postponement and his reliance on an unconfirmed telephone call, which led to a default judgment against his client, constituted a clear disregard of his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence. This violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer to not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
On the charge of betrayal of confidences, respondent violated the duty of loyalty that continues even after the attorney-client relationship ends. By utilizing confidential information acquired during his employment with LFC—specifically, details of the investigation against San Juan—to assist the adverse party in a subsequent related case, he breached Canon 17. His defense that the counter-affidavit was prepared by another lawyer and filed without his consent was deemed an incredible afterthought. The Supreme Court found that his actions constituted a conflict of interest and a betrayal of trust. Consequently, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months.