Qcourt: L/Rpublic of Tlje

( M. .
""'"''"<o~_.~
:s"
,'-.~:i-
\\'
\~ -......
.f
\\,....
'~~!~ f
l\rpublic of tlJe ~IJilippines
~upreme QCourt
.fllnniln
EN BANC
ANGELITO RAMISCAL and A.C. No. 10945

MERCEDES ORZAME, (Formerly CBD 09-2507)
Complainants,
Present:
SERENO, CJ.,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
- versus - PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ,
*MENDOZA,
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
JARDELEZA, and
CAGUIOA, JJ.
ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Promulgated:
Respondent. February 23, 2016
~~-
x---------------------------------------------------- - ---- - - ----~--------x
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The fiduciary duty of every lawyer towards his client requires him to
conscientiously act in advancing and safeguarding the latter's interest. His
failure or neglect to do so constitutes a serious breach of his Lawyer's Oath
and the canons of professional ethics, and renders him liable for gross
misconduct that may warrant his suspension from the practice of law.
On leave.
~
Decision 2 A.C. No. 10945
Antecedents
Complainants Spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame

(Ramiscals) engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Edgar S. Orro to
handle a case in which they were the defendants seeking the declaration of
the nullity of title to a parcel of land situated in the Province of Isabela.1
Upon receiving the P10,000.00 acceptance fee from them, the respondent
handled the trial of the case until the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided it
in their favor. As expected, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals
(CA), and they ultimately filed their appellants brief. Upon receipt of the
appellants brief, the respondent requested from the complainants an
additional amount of P30,000.00 for the preparation and submission of their
appellees brief in the CA. They obliged and paid him the amount
requested.2
Later on, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The respondent
did not inform the Ramiscals of the adverse decision of the CA which they
only learned about from their neighbors. They endeavored to communicate
with the respondent but their efforts were initially in vain. When they finally
reached him, he asked an additional P7,000.00 from them as his fee in filing
a motion for reconsideration in their behalf, albeit telling them that such
motion would already be belated. Even so, they paid to him the amount
sought. To their dismay, they later discovered that he did not file the motion
for reconsideration; hence, the decision attained finality, eventually resulting
in the loss of their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth
of P3,391,600.00.3
Consequently, the Ramiscals brought this administrative complaint

against the respondent. The Court referred the complaint to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for appropriate evaluation, report and
recommendation.4
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
Despite due notice, the Ramiscals and the respondent did not appear
during the scheduled mandatory conferences set by the IBP. Neither did they
submit their respective evidence.
1
Rollo, pp. 8-24.
2
Id. at 4.
3
Id. at 5-6.
4
Id. at 2.
IBP Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda rendered his findings to the

effect that the respondent had violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended his suspension
from the practice law for one year.5
On October 11, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution

No. XXI-2014-829,6 whereby it adopted the report of IBP Commissioner
Almeyda but modified his recommendation of the penalty by increasing the
period of suspension to two years, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED with modification the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-
entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex A, and for
violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
aggravated by his disregard of the notices from the Commission and
considering the extent of the damage suffered by Complainant, Atty. Edgar
S. Orro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
years.
Ruling of the Court
We agree with the IBPs findings that the respondent did not
competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of the
Ramiscals.
Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the Philippine Bar,

solemnly takes the Lawyers Oath, by which he vows, among others, that: I
will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to my clients. If he should violate the vow, he
contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly its Canon
17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18, viz.:
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and

he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence.
xxxx
5
Id. at 52-55.
6
Id. at 51.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status
of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.
It is beyond debate, therefore, that the relationship of the lawyer and

the client becomes imbued with trust and confidence from the moment that
the lawyer-client relationship commences, with the lawyer being bound to
serve his clients with full competence, and to attend to their cause with
utmost diligence, care and devotion.7 To accord with this highly fiduciary
relationship, the client expects the lawyer to be always mindful of the
formers cause and to be diligent in handling the formers legal affairs.8 As
an essential part of their highly fiduciary relationship, the client is entitled to
the periodic and full updates from the lawyer on the developments of the
case.9 The lawyer who neglects to perform his obligations violates Rule
18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.10
As a member of the Law Profession in the Philippines, the respondent

had the foregoing professional and ethical burdens. But he obviously failed
to discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with
all good fidelity to his clients. By voluntarily taking up their cause, he gave
his unqualified commitment to advance and defend their interest therein.
Even if he could not thereby guarantee to them the favorable outcome of the
litigation, he reneged on his commitment nonetheless because he did not file
the motion for reconsideration in their behalf despite receiving from them
the P7,000.00 he had requested for that purpose. He further neglected to
regularly update them on the status of the case, particularly on the adverse
result, thereby leaving them in the dark on the proceedings that were
gradually turning against their interest. Updating the clients could have
prevented their substantial prejudice by enabling them to engage another
competent lawyer to handle their case. As it happened, his neglect in that
respect lost for them whatever legal remedies were then available. His
various omissions manifested his utter lack of professionalism towards them.
We further underscore that the respondent owed it to himself and to

the entire Legal Profession of the Philippines to exhibit due respect towards
the IBP as the national organization of all the members of the Legal
Profession. His unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP
to comment and to appear in the administrative investigation of his
misconduct revealed his irresponsibility as well as his disrespect for the IBP
7
Voluntad-Ramirez v. Bautista, A.C. No. 6733, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA 327, 333.
8
Caranza Vda. de Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013, 700 SCRA 734, 741.
9
Credito v. Sabio, A.C. No. 4920, October 19, 2005, 473 SCRA 301, 310.
10
Ylaya v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452, 479.
Decision 5 A.C. No. I 0945
and its proceedings. He thereby exposed a character flaw that should not
tarnish the nobility of the Legal Profession. 11 He should always bear in mind
that his being a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as a person of the
highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings with
others. 12 He should never forget that his duty to serve his clients with
unwavering loyalty and diligence carried with it the corresponding
responsibilities towards the Court, to the Bar, and to the public in general. 13
There can be no question that a lawyer is guilty of misconduct

sufficient to justify his suspension or disbarment if he so acts as to be
unworthy of the trust and confidence involved in his official oath and is
found to be wanting in that honesty and integrity that must characterize the
members of the Bar in the performance of their professional duties. 14 Based
on all the circumstances in this case, we approve the recommendation of the
IBP for the respondent's suspension from the practice of law for a period of
two years. Although the Court imposed a six-month suspension from the
practice of law on lawyers violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, 15 the recommended penalty is condign and
proportionate to the offense charged and established because his display of
disrespectful defiance of the orders of the IBP aggravated his misconduct.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent

ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO guilty of violating Canon 17, and Rules 18.03
and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for a period for TWO YEARS EFFECTIVE
UPON NOTICE, with the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar

Confidant, to be appended to the respondent's personal record as an
attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to all courts in the
Philippines for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
11
Meneses v. Macalino, A.C. No. 6651, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 212, 220.
12
Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, A.C. No. I 0179 (Formerly CBD 11-2985), March 4, 2014.
13
Camara v. Reyes, A.C. No. 6121, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 484, 490.
14
In Re Wells, 168 S.W. 2d 730, 732, 293 Ky. 201, 204 (1943).
15
Brunet v. Guaren, A.C. No. 10164, March 10, 2014, 718 SCRA 224, 227; Penilla v. Alcid, Jr., A.C.
No. 9149, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 1, 9.
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
~~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
/
T~J~fo_~R~ CJrw Associate Justice Associate Justice

,.
Associate Justice
(On Leave)
REZ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
UJ.~
ESTELA M:pfERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
"'
Associate Justice

Qcourt: L/Rpublic of Tlje

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qcourt: L/Rpublic of Tlje

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qcourt: L/Rpublic of Tlje

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

( M. .

l\rpublic of tlJe ~IJilippines

ANGELITO RAMISCAL and A.C. No. 10945

ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Promulgated:

Respondent. February 23, 2016

Complainants Spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame

Consequently, the Ramiscals brought this administrative complaint

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

IBP Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda rendered his findings to the

On October 11, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

Ruling of the Court

Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the Philippine Bar,

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and

CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

It is beyond debate, therefore, that the relationship of the lawyer and

As a member of the Law Profession in the Philippines, the respondent

We further underscore that the respondent owed it to himself and to

There can be no question that a lawyer is guilty of misconduct

ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent

Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

T~J~fo_~R~ CJrw Associate Justice Associate Justice

You might also like