Curimatmat v. Gojar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, former employees of Uniwide Sales, Inc., filed an administrative complaint against their lawyer, Atty. Felipe Gojar, for alleged lack of fidelity to their cause. The alleged acts included moving for the dismissal of a petition for review (G.R. No. 113201) without their consent, failing to file an appeal within the reglementary period in an Unfair Labor Practice case (NLRC Case No. NCR-00-12-07755-93) and misrepresenting the date of receipt of the decision, failing to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court in a money claims case despite repeated follow-ups, and failing to file an appeal in another NLRC case (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-04380-93) after receiving the decision and deliberately hiding this fact from the complainants. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Hearings were scheduled, but the respondent opted not to appear, leading to the presentation of evidence ex parte by the complainants. The Board of Governors of the IBP recommended suspension from the practice of law for six months. The Petition: The complainants sought disciplinary action against Atty. Gojar for alleged professional misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Felipe Gojar failed to demonstrate the required fidelity to his clients' cause. Whether respondent's actions warranted suspension from the practice of law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Felipe Gojar with a warning that any repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. The Court found that while the respondent was remiss in his duties, suspension was not warranted as it was his first offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Atty. Felipe Gojar failed to demonstrate the required fidelity to his clients' cause: The Court found that the respondent was remiss in his duties. Specifically, he was alleged to have been remiss in his duty to appeal on time an adverse Resolution of the DOLE Secretary in a case affirming the dismissal of a union's Petition for Certification Election. Furthermore, he was accused of having moved for the dismissal of the complainants' petition for review with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 113201) without their consent. The Court noted that the respondent attempted to refute these allegations in his Comment but failed to substantiate his claims that he consulted the complainants and sought their conformity before withdrawing the case. The Court also pointed out that the respondent chose to ignore the hearings before the IBP, where he could have provided further clarification on the controversy. The Court reiterated the principle that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him, as established in cases like Gamalinda vs. Alcantara and Legarda vs. Court of Appeals. On the issue of whether respondent's actions warranted suspension from the practice of law: The Court concluded that while the respondent's shortcomings were evident, suspension from the practice of law was not the appropriate penalty. The Court considered that this was the respondent's first offense. Therefore, a reprimand was deemed sufficient. The Court also took the opportunity to remind litigants that lawyers are not expected to win every case, regardless of its merit, and that while competence and diligence are expected, victory is not always guaranteed. The Court emphasized that in any litigation, there will always be a winner and a loser unless parties agree to settle.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. Failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, a reprimand may be sufficient for a first offense, considering the circumstances.