A.C. No. 10378 - JOSE FRANCISCO T. BAENS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JONATHAN T. SEMPIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For his part, the 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. [16] Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration. [17] It is beyond dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to handle his case. The records, however, definitively bear out that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent in handling the complainants case, notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of P250,000.00 for the total expenses to be incurred in the said case. The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial court is highly intolerable. In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and case records was within the respondents control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. Moreso, the preparation and the filing of the answer is a matter of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of the respondent. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the advancement of his clients cause of action. Records further disclose that the respondent omitted to update himself of the progress of his clients case with the trial court, and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his clients interest. Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of law to support his clients interest. When a lawyer agrees to take up a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. [18] Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to his client as embodied in Canon 15 of the Code. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. [19] In this case, the respondents reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients interests. A lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his 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 even without prodding from the client or the court. [20] Clearly, it cannot