LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION represented by Mr. SOLOMON U.

LORENZANA, JR., as its President and General Manager, and/or Mrs.

ELIZABETH L. DIAZ, as its Vice-President, petitioners,
vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO L. DARIA, respondent.
FACTS:
ATTY. FRANCISCO L. DARIA was hired by complainant Lorenzana Food Corporation
(LFC) as its legal counsel and was designated as its personnel manager six months
later
LFC employee, Violeta Hanopol, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other
monetary claims against complainant before the Department of Labor and
Employment.
Later on, Hanopol and respondent tried to explore the possibility of an amicable
settlement.
Faced with a conflicting schedule, Atty. Akut decided to move and to postpone the
hearing in the Hanopol case.
However, instead of filing a written motion for postponement, he opted to call,
through his secretary, the Office of the Labor Arbiter apparently the message failed
to reach the Labor Arbiter.
As it resulted, the Labor Arbiter issued a Decision directing LFC to pay Hanopol the
total sum of P6,469.60 in labor benefits, on the basis of Hanopol's evidence alone.
Other allegation was that Atty. Akut represented Roberto San Juan an employee of
the complainant who filed a case against it while he was still connected to the said
company.
ISSUE: WON ATTY. Akut has violated the CPR
HELD:
For failure to appear in two consecutive hearings and to submit a position paper in
the Hanopol case which resulted in complainant LFC's default and judgment against
it by the Labor Arbiter, the respondent is faulted for negligence.
From the foregoing, it is manifest that the respondent is indeed guilty of
negligence, a clear violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 18
A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
The other accusation against the respondent by the Solicitor General was that he
had betrayed complainant LFC's confidences
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.
Again, we concur with the findings and evaluation of the Office of the Solicitor
General: Respondent, however, tried to extricate himself from his predicament by
testifying that the counteraffidavit was prepared by a lawyer-friend, Atty. Joselito R.
Enriquez, who had his (respondent's) name typed on it; that after reading it, he
called up Atty. Enriquez so that he will delete his name and signature thereon; that
he instructed San Juan to bring the counteraffidavit to Atty. Enriquez so that he will
delete his name and signature, but San Juan did not obey him; and that San Juan
filed the counteraffidavit with the office of the Provincial Fiscal with his name and
signature still on it (tsn. pp. 47-51, Dec. 9, 1985).It is submitted that, apart from
being a mere afterthought, respondent's explanation is incredible. His foregoing
testimony is not reflected in his comment on the complaint . . . 13
We are convinced that the respondent had betrayed the confidences of the
complainant, his former client.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondent is found guilty of both the
charge of negligence, a transgression of Rule 18.03, Canon 18, and the charge of

betrayal of his former client's confidences, in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility.
The respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months.

SPOUSES WILLIAM ADECER and TERESITA P. ADECER, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. EMMANUEL AKUT, Respondent.
FACTS:
Complainants spouses Adecer were charged with committing a crime and
respondent Atty. Akut was their legal counsel in the criminal
Atty. Akut received a copy of the MTCCs Decision convicting complainants of Other
Deceits and sentencing them to the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less
than P30,000.00.3Complainants were also ordered to pay civil liability in the form of
damages and attorneys fees totaling P66,000.00 to the private respondents in the
criminal case.
Respondent had fifteen (15) days to file either an appeal or a petition for probation6
in behalf of the complainants.
However, Atty. Akut failed to take action within the given time.
Thus, complainants filed the instant administrative case praying that respondent be
disbarred and ordered to reimburse complainants of expenses, with interest and
damages.
Complainants averred that Atty. Akut was always out of his office and always cannot
be reached and thus he has less time for the case.
Atty. Akut explained that he was out of his office most of the time because he and
his wife were always out of town looking for faith healers to cure the malignant
brain tumor of his wife, who succumbed to the cancer.
ISSUE: whether respondent is administratively liable for a violating the principles of
legal ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility in filing the Petition for
Probation beyond the reglementary period.
HELD:
The court agreed on the decision of Commissioner Reyes and the IBP that
respondent failed to exercise the proper diligence in dealing with the case of his
clients.
Either of his two "explanations" is enough ground to render him liable for
negligence under the Code of Professional Conduct. First, despite his receipt of a
copy of the Decision and the consequent running of the fifteen (15)-day period to
file a petition for probation, respondent went out of town without contacting
complainants to give them proper legal advice. Furthermore, his admission that
complainants were [1] under the impression that they first had to pay off their civil
liabilities prior to filing a petition for probation and [2] unaware that they had only
fifteen (15) days from their counsels receipt of a copy of the decision to file their
petition, proves that he failed to give complainants timely legal advise.
There are many ways to provide proper representation for his clients and many

things which respondent could have done that would give the Court the impression
that he had the least bit of concern for his clients cause. But nothing of the sort
was presented by respondent. We find that respondents omission is a culpable act
of negligence for which he must be held liable.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Atty. Emmanuel A. Akut is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and ADMONISHED

henceforth to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties to his clients,

with the caveat that commission of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.