AM 4103; (September, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4103 September 7, 1995
Veronica S. Santiago, Benjamin Q. Hontiveros, Socorro F. Manas, and Trinidad Nordista, complainants, vs. Atty. Amado R. Fojas, respondent.
FACTS
The complainants, officers of the Far Eastern University Faculty Association (FEUFA), engaged respondent Atty. Amado Fojas as counsel in a civil case for damages filed against them by Paulino Salvador. The case stemmed from the complainants’ illegal expulsion of Salvador from the union, as previously declared final by the Department of Labor and Employment. The trial court initially dismissed the civil case upon respondent’s motion but later reinstated it and ordered the filing of an answer. Instead of filing an answer, respondent filed successive motions for reconsideration and a petition for certiorari, all of which were denied. Due to his failure to file the required answer, the complainants were declared in default, leading to an ex-parte judgment against them for substantial damages, which was affirmed on appeal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Amado Fojas committed culpable negligence in handling his clients’ case, warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is liable for inexcusable negligence. The Court found a clear breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 18.03, which mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. His failure to file the mandatory answer after the trial court’s order, despite having pursued various dilatory motions, constituted a dereliction of his fundamental duty to serve his clients with competence and diligence. This neglect directly resulted in his clients being declared in default and suffering an adverse judgment.
The respondent’s defense—that the case was a “losing cause” based on the final labor ruling—was rejected as an afterthought. If he truly believed the defense was futile, his ethical duty under Rule 15.05 was to candidly advise his clients accordingly, not to neglect the filing of an answer. His active pursuit of preliminary motions and appeals contradicted his claim of the case’s hopelessness. The Court held that the complainants were deprived of a chance to present defenses, such as challenging the proportionality of damages, due to respondent’s negligence. Consequently, while disbarment was not deemed warranted, the Court reprimanded Atty. Fojas and admonished him to be more careful in his professional duties.