Cantiller VS Potenciano

CANON 17: TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
A.M. Case No. 3195. December 18, 1989
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO, respondent.
Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client's cause. A lawyer who performs that
duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain
the respect of the community to the legal profession. This is so because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not
only to the client but also to the court, to the bar or to the public. That circumstance explains the public concern for the maintenance of an untarnished
standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client.
FACTS:
Humberto V. Potenciano, a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with
gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
Complainant herein is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, defendant in an action for "ejectment"
Another action, likewise involving Peregrina but this time as plaintiff, was then pending before the Regional Trial Court for "reconveyance with
damages." Both actions involve the apartment unit being rented by complainant and her sister.
When the two cases were concluded, Peregrina came out the losing party. Complainant and Peregrina were served a notice to vacate the rented premises
within four (4) days from receipt of notice.
Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan, on the matter. Pagalunan, in turn, introduced them to herein respondent.
After such introduction, the parties "impliedly agreed" that respondent would handle their case.
A petition entitled "Annulment of Judgment, Annulment of Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Order, etc." was
prepared by respondent to forestall the execution of the order to vacate for the Ejectment Case.
The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for
annulment of judgment. Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that the necessary restraining order would be secured if only because the
judge who would hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close friend).
Thereupon, the petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court and was docketed as Civil Case No. 55118. Respondent demanded from the complainant
one thousand pesos (P l,000.00) as attorney's fee which the latter paid that same afternoon.
However, when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground
of their friendship. Respondent went to the house of complainant and asked her to be ready with two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) to be given to another
judge who will issue the restraining order in the ejectment case. Complainant and her sister were only able to raise the amount of one thousand pesos
which they immediately gave to respondent.
At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118, respondent, contrary to his promise that he would secure a restraining order,
withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Thus, no restraining order or
preliminary injunction was obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in Civil Case No. 6046 was eventually enforced and executed.
It came to complainant's knowledge that there was really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos (P l0,000.00) relative to Civil Case No. 55210.
After further inquiry, she found out that in fact there was no such deposit made. Thus,, complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the
return of the total amount of eleven thousand pesos (P 11,000.00) which the former earlier gave to the latter. However, this letter was never answered and
the money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this administrative complaint against herein respondent.
RESPONDENT: That the filing of Civil Cases was done in good faith and that the allegations of complainant relative to the administrative charge
against him are all lies, product of one's imagination and only intended to harrass him.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
RULING: YES!
This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases appear to be poorly prepared and written. having represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels
for the apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his representation.
He bragged about his closeness to the judge concerned in one case and talked about the need to "buy" the restraining order in the other. Worse still he got
P 10,000.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead he pocketed the same.
When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise
due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. The acts of
respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics .
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would
be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no
steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.
Even assuming that respondent had no previous knowledge, the record is quite clear that four (4) days prior to the hearing of the preliminary injunction
respondent already filed a motion therein withdrawing as complainant's counsel interposing as reason therefor his frequent attacks of pain due to
hemorrhoids. Despite this void, respondent failed to find a replacement. He did not even ask complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead. His
actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which
he owes his client.
More so in this case, where by reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all her cases.
The filing of Civil Case on the same day that he had already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for complainant reveals his lack of good faith as an
advocate. It was all a show to get more money from her. This adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
His duty was not only to prepare the pleadings but to represent complainant until the termination of the cases. This he failed to do.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an
ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public interest.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of
law for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law. Respondent is
hereby ordered to return to complainant herein the sum of eleven thousand pesos (P11,000.00) with legal interest from the date of this resolution until it
is actually returned.

Cantiller VS Potenciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cantiller VS Potenciano

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

Cantiller VS Potenciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CANON 17: TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

A.M. Case No. 3195. December 18, 1989

MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, complainant,

You might also like