A.

LAWYER
1. Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer
In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani
A.C. No. 5307. August 9, 2000
Facts: Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed to
submit his proof of service in his appellant's brief which subsequently caused the inability of the
appellee to file his own brief. The IBP was order to investigate on the matter and despite
repeated notices, Bayani failed to submit the proof of service and his answer to the IBP's query.
Hence, this administrative complaint.

Held: GUILTY. Atty. Bayani's failure to submit proof of service of appellant's brief and his
failure to submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful orders of
the Supreme Court, a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. It appears that
Atty. Bayani has fallen short of the circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A
counsel must always remember that his actions or omissions are binding on his clients. A
lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representation.
Further, lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal
procedure and anyone who deals with them has the right to expect not just a good amount
of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to his client's
cause. Having been remiss in his duty to the Court and to the Bar, Atty. Bayani was
suspended from the practice of law for 3 months and until the time he complies with the
Order of the Supreme Court to submit the required proof of service.
2. Duty to Client/Accounting of Clients Money/Negligence
Teodulfo B. Basas vs. Atty. Miguel I. Icawat

A.C. No. 4282. August 24, 2000

Facts: Atty. Miguel Icawat was the lawyer for Teodulfo Basas and some other laborers in their
complaint against their employer. The NLRC rendered an adverse decision. Basas and his
fellow workers, however, insisted that they appeal the decision. Atty. Icawat, however, failed to
file the required memorandum of appeal. Basas filed an administrative complaint, also alleging
that Atty. Icawat issued a receipt for an amount less than that which they had paid him.
Held: GUILTY. Respondent's failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the NLRC
Rules of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law. Respondent practically admitted that he

did not file the memorandum. His failure to file the memorandum clearly prejudiced the interests
of his clients. Respondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of his profession, in
violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable. For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the money he received from
his clients, respondent also violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
states that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client. The Court fined Atty. Icawat in the amount of PhP 500, with a warning that a repetition of
the same offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.