CHANG V HIDALGO

actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding

ISSUE
WON

Hidalgo is administratively liable

-

FACTS
1)

2)

this

counsel for the cases, he did not anymore attend any

administrative Complaint1 before the Office of the Bar

of the hearings. Since the withdrawal was without the

Confidant of this Court on November 7, 2005.

Chang prayed that this Court discipline respondent

conformity of complainant, new counsel was not

Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo (Atty. Hidalgo) for being remiss

dismissal of the collection cases as alleged by

Complainant

Helen

Chang

(Chang)

filed

engaged. This necessarily resulted in the summary

in his duties as her counsel and as an officer of the

court. She claimed that Atty. Hidalgo failed to "handle

3)

another lawyer to represent her and handle her cases

[her] in all honesty and candor."

Chang alleged that she engaged the services of Atty.

with the utmost zeal and diligence expected from

Hidalgo as legal counsel to represent her in several

opted to withdraw from the cases without complying

collection cases pending in various courts. Pursuant

with the requirements under the Rules of Court and

to the contract they executed, Chang issued five (5)

in complete disregard of his obligations towards his

checks in favor of Atty. Hidalgo totaling 52,000.00.5

client.
In Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo:
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is

officers of the court. However, respondent simply

Chang claimed that despite receiving a total of

"imbued with utmost trust and confidence." Lawyers

61,500.00, Atty. Hidalgo did not attend any of the

5)

hearings in the collection cases and, instead, sent

are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and

another lawyer without her consent.

The other lawyer failed to attend all hearings, which

competence in managing cases entrusted to them.

They commit not only to review cases or give legal

resulted in the dismissal of the cases. Chang prayed

advice, but also to represent their clients to the best of

that Atty. Hidalgo be administratively disciplined by

their ability without need to be reminded by either

this Court.
the Commission on Bar Discipline received a

handwritten and unverified Comment27 from Atty.

should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent,

that Chang retained him as counsel but countered

and efficient manner; and provide the quality of

that he attended the hearings. He denied allowing

service at least equal to that which he, himself, would

another lawyer to appear on his behalf. Although he

expect from a competent lawyer in a similar situation.

denied waiving his appearance fee, he claimed that he

By consenting to be his clients counsel, a lawyer

did not receive "such a sum [referring to the

impliedly represents that he will exercise ordinary

acceptance fee] from [Chang] mainly because of the

diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill

length of time [that] passed." Atty. Hidalgo insisted

demanded by his profession, and his client may

that due to the "transigient [sic] and uncooperative"

reasonably expect him to perform his obligations

attitude of Chang, he decided that he "could no longer

diligently. The failure to meet these standards

perform [his job as Changs counsel] adequately." He

reasoned that he could not put up an effective defense
due to his illness and his impoverished state. He
prayed that the administrative case against him be
dismissed
DECISION
YES

Respondents acts constitute violations of Canon 17

the client or the court

In Nonato v. Fudolin, Jr.:
A lawyer is bound to protect his clients interests to
the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. He

Hidalgo. In his Comment, Atty. Hidalgo admitted

complainant.
Complainant could have obtained the services of

[her] cases to the best of his ability and to deal with

Atty. Hidalgo also collected 9,500.00 as "hearing fee."

4)

upon his [or her] client."

Due to respondents withdrawal as complainants

warrants the imposition of disciplinary action

NOTES
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.

and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional

Rule 18.03

Responsibility
In Layos v. Villanueva,60 this Court reiterated that a

his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

"lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his [or her]

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and