Cited Laws
accordingly be reckoned. There can be no quibbling that Atty. Estaniel received a copy of Atty. Datukon's April 1, 1996 " MANIFESTATION " on the same date. Said manifestation carried all the basic earmarks of a proper pleading or like papers filed in court. It carried the precise case number and title. The exact branch of the handling RTC was particularly identified, the lawyers involved in the litigation were named and the specific subject covered by the manifestation, i.e. , motion for execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 580, was clearly discernible. Atty. Estaniel, therefore, cannot plausibly feign ignorance as to what decision the motion for execution was about. . . . . . . . . . . . . In a very real sense, Atty. Datukon's " MANIFESTATION " was an alerting medium that a final ruling has been issued by the trial court, which should have thus prodded Atty. Estaniel and any prudent counsel for that matter to act accordingly. Canon 18 of the Code cjf Professional Responsibility imposes upon a lawyer the duty to " serve his client with competence and diligence ." Subsumed in this imposition, which commences from the time a lawyer is retained until his effective release from the case or final disposition of the whole subject of the litigation, is the duty to safeguard his client's interest with the vigilance and attention of a good father of the family. In line with his duty as defined in Canon 18 of the Code, it behooved Atty. Estaniel, upon receipt of Atty. Datukon's manifestation, to posthaste inquire from the trial court or even from Atty. Datukon himself, about the status of petitioner's case since the manifestation, a copy of which he has thus been furnished, already made specific reference to a motion for execution filed by the counsel of his clients' adversary. Atty. Estaniel must thus be held to task for his failure to exercise due diligence in the discharge of his duties as counsel. Petitioners, too, must suffer the consequence of such failure because a client is bound by the conduct, negligence or mistakes of his counsel. [69] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) Petitioner's counsel was furnished a copy of the motion for execution on September 11, 2009. [70] As discussed by the Court of Appeals, this motion categorically states that the trial court rendered its Decision on April 16, 2009, yet petitioner's counsel filed no opposition. [71] At that time, he did not file any motion asserting that he was not furnished a copy of the Decision. [72] It was only on January 8, 2010 when his client informed him of the Writ of Execution did petitioner's counsel file an Urgent Motion to Vacate the Writ of Execution on the ground that he did not receive a copy of the Regional Trial Court Decision. [73] Jurisprudence reiterates that "[l]itigants who are represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their cases." [74] This court has held that "equity aids the vigilant