Canoy v.

Ortiz
Facts:
This is a case wherein complainant Elmer Canoy accused his former counsel, Atty.
Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. In 1998, Canoy filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, and
was represented in said case by Atty. Ortiz. Canoy, explained Ortiz, was one of his
indigent clients, in that it was the latters practice since commencing his practice
of law to cater to indigent and law-income clients. In the labor case against CCBP
filed with the National Labor Relations Commission, the labor arbiter ordered the
parties to submit their respective petition papers. Canoy submitted all the
necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position
paper. Canoy made several follow-ups with the office of his attorney, said visits
were unfruitful until it came to his knowledge on 2000, upon inquiring with the
NLRC itself, that his complaint was already dismissed way back in 1998 for failure
to prosecute because the parties did not submit their position papers. Atty. Canoy
further claimed that Atty. Ortiz never informed him about the status of his case
nor of the fact that he failed to submit the position paper.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice
Ruling:
Upon investigation of the case, the Integrated Bar of the Philippinesconcluded
that clearly Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise the degree of competence and diligence
required of him in prosecuting his client and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be
reprimanded. The Supreme Court, however, finds the recommended penalty of
the IBP too lenent and instead suspended Atty. Ortize from the practice of law for
one month, in lieu of the admonition or reprimand. According to the Court, Atty
Ortiz several canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Specifically, Atty. Ortiz was guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code, which
states, A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable, on account of his
failure to file the position paper on time, tantamount to neglecting a legal mater
entrusted to him. That the case was dismissed without prejudice does not
mitigate his liability. Further, Ortiz also violated Rule 22.02, which states, A laywer
shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.