A.C. No. 10537 - REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. . . . . Case law further illumines that a lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsels care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. Conversely, a lawyers negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action . While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyers mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation . [44] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Respondent Atty. Margallo was unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal counsel to Ramirez. The lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty. Margallo and her client was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of her client. This cost complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no appellate remedies. His legal cause was orphaned not because a court of law ruled on the merits of his case, but because a person privileged to act as counsel failed to discharge her duties with the requisite diligence. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no proof that she exerted efforts to communicate with her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her obligation as counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo failed to exhaust all possible means to protect complainant Ramirezs interest, which is contrary to what she had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. For these reasons, she clearly violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A problem arises whenever agents, entrusted to manage the interests of another, use their authority or power for their benefit or fail to discharge their duties. In many agencies, there is information assymetry between the principal and the entrusted agent. That is, there are facts and events that the agent must attend to that may not be known by the principal. This information assymetry is even more pronounced in an attorney-client relationship. Lawyers are expected not only to be familiar with the minute facts of their cases but also to see their relevance in relation to their causes of action or their defenses. The salience of these facts is not usually patent to the cli