A.C. No. 10713 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4731] - BRYCE RUSSEL MITCHELL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUAN PAOLO F. AMISTOSO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio . Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. [8] Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. [9] Corollary, an administrative proceeding against a lawyer continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, or as in this case , the failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices. Here, the Court has given Atty. Amistoso several opportunities to answer the complaint against him yet no answer came. From the records, the Resolution dated February 23, 2015 sent by the Court to Atty. Amistoso was received by the latter on March 26, 2015 per Court's Registry Return Card No. 23101, yet he failed to comply with the Court's reminders. The natural instinct of man impels him to resist an unfounded claim or imputation and defend himself. It is totally against our human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing in the face of false accusations. Silence in such cases is almost always construed as implied admission of the truth thereof. Consequently, we are left with no choice but to deduce his implicit admission of the charges levelled against him. Qui facet consentive videtur . Silence gives consent. This instant administrative case will, thus, proceed despite Atty. Amistoso's unwillingness to cooperate in the proceedings. In the instant case, records show that complainant engaged the services of Atty. Amistoso for the filing of a civil case for annulment of marriage. However, despite such agreement, complainant lamented that Atty. Amistoso failed to comply with his undertakings without giving any valid reason, as shown by his failure to attend the court hearings for the annulment case. He, likewise, failed to communicate with complainant, without any reason, thus, left his client's cause in quandary. It must be stressed that no lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of his client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client