A.C. No. 5817; May 27, 2004
Emma V. De Juan, complainant, vs. Atty. Oscar R. Baria III, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emma De Juan engaged the services of respondent Atty. Oscar Baria III, a new lawyer providing free legal aid through a radio program, to handle her illegal dismissal case against her former employer. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in her favor. However, the employer appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the decision. De Juan alleged that Atty. Baria was negligent for failing to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s adverse decision. She claimed that when she inquired about the next step, he stated he did not know how to prepare such a motion. She further accused him of making threats through his secretary after her husband followed up on the case.
In his defense, Atty. Baria asserted he diligently handled the case but explained to De Juan his limited experience as a new lawyer. He advised her to seek more experienced counsel for the appeal after the NLRC decision, as he lacked confidence. He denied receiving money from the opposing party and claimed the complainant and her husband were the ones who made threats against him following a defamatory radio commentary about the case.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Oscar R. Baria III violated his professional duties through negligence and improper conduct in handling his client’s case.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Baria guilty of negligence and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to serve a client with competence and diligence is paramount. Atty. Baria’s admission of his inability to file a basic motion for reconsideration demonstrated a failure to render competent service, which is unacceptable regardless of his being a new practitioner. His candor about his limitations does not excuse the breach of duty.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that Atty. Baria improperly withdrew from his representation. A lawyer remains counsel of record until formally relieved by the client or by the court after due notice. He cannot unilaterally abandon a client. By merely advising De Juan to get another lawyer without ensuring a proper substitution or securing court permission for his withdrawal, he left his client without legal assistance at a critical stage. This constituted neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning.