MARIA LUZ

ATIENZA,
Complainant
, vs.
VICENTEEVANGEL
ISTA,
Respondent
.
A.M. No. 1517
November 29,
1977FERNANDO,
J
.
library
!RINCI!LES
LEGAL
MALPRACTICE
FACTS
In a complaint fled wit
tis Co!rt by Maria L!"
Atien"a, respondent
V"#e$%e
Ev&$'e(")%&, &
member o* %+e !
+"(""$e -&r,
&)#+&r'e/ "%
+
0$ro*e))"o$&(
#o$/0#%
0$be#om"$' &
membero* %+e
b&r.
It was alle#ed tat e
was remiss in attendin#
to er case wit
teManila City $iscal
%s &'ce
notwitstandin# is
avin# been
retainedand paid (or is
services. )e was re*!
ired to answer. Tat
e did. Tere was an
admission on is
part o( is avin# been
retained, b!te denied
any imp!tation o( lac+
o( d!e dili#ence in
per(ormin# tele#al
services re*!ired
o( im.)e asserted tat
e ad always cond!
cted imsel( in a
mannerepected
o( a lawyer. Tis
notwitstandin#, tere
was arecommendation
by te investi#atin#
fscal tat te case be
dropped(or ins!'ciency
o( evidence. Ten and
tere, complainant
dispensedwit is
services and sortly
terea(ter too+ (rom
im all te
papersconnected wit
s!c a case. It was is
ass!mption tere(ore
tat e-was no lon#er !
nder obli#ation to
participate in any
proceedin#
inconnection wit said
case. Tat d!ty ad
been si(ted to te
newlawyer o( Mrs.
Atien"a in te case
involvin# er !sband.-
virt!allawlaw
libraryI/E0 1eter
te respondent was
wil(!lly ne#li#ent in
teper(ormance o( is
d!ties as co!nsel to te
complainant to
tedama#e and pre2!
dice
o( te latter.)EL30Mem
bersip in te bar is an
eactin# responsibility.
It is, to *!ote(rom 4!stice
Cardo"o, -a privile#e b!
rdened wit
conditions.-
1
 Itimposes, at te very
least, te obli#ation
o( attendin# wit d!e
"ealand dili#ence to a
client%s ca!se.As a r!
le, an attorney en2oys
te le#al pres!mption
tat e isinnocent
o( te car#es !ntil te
contrary is proved, and,
as ano'cer o( te co!rt,
e as per(ormed is
d!ty in accordance wit
isoat.. T!s, in every
case o( disbarment te
b!rden o( proo( lies
witte complainant to
sow tat te
respondent is #!ilty
o( te actscar#ed. In
te present case,
tere is no s!'cient
evidence sowin#tat
te respondent lawyer
violated is oat or was
ne#li#ent inandlin#
te complainant%s
case. Te respondent
personallyprepared te
complaint o( Mrs.
Atien"a and fled tis
wit te $iscal%s&'ce.
1en te case was set
(or preliminary
investi#ation, e
waspresent in no less
tan 56 sced!led
earin#s. )e presented
aswitnesses te
complainant and (o!r
oter persons. Tese
(acts areome by te
case record and
admitted by te
complainant.
Tecomplainant%s
case was dismissed
apparently beca!se
o( te (ail!reo( te
complainant%s
witnesses to s!bmit to
cross7eamination.Eva
n#elista was, t!s,
constrained to s!bmit
te case on te basis
o( te evidence already
on record. Tese (acts
do not
indicatene#li#ence on
te Part
o( te respondent. Te
complainant wo
waspresent d!rin# te
earin# was (!lly aware
tat se still ad
topresent two o( er
witnesses
(or cross7eamination
on te netsced!led
earin#.-law libraryAs
to te alle#ation by
complainant tat
respondent did not
in(ormer tat te case
ad been dismissed
and tat e did notin#
toremedy te same,
te record does not s!
pport tis
claim. Atien"aalso
confrms tat se
terminated
te respondent%s
services. Te concl!
din# para#rap o( te
report (ollows0 -Te
complainta#ainst te
respondent Atty.
8icente Evan#elists as
not beenestablised by
competent evidence.
Te dismissal o( Mrs.
Atien"a%scase is not
imp!table to
respondent.
A member o* %
+e b&r #&$$o
%be )0be#%e/
%o %+e er"( o*
/")b&rme$
% )"m(
be#&0)e
o*/e#")"o$
&/ver)e %o +")
#("e$%.
 Te serio!s conse*!
ence o(disbarment or s!
spension so!ld (ollow
only were tere is
a clearpreponderance
o( evidence sowin#
te basis
tereo(.- Accordin#ly,t
e recommendation was
(or te dismissal o( te
complaint. Tis Co!rt is
in a#reement. It wo!ld
be to place an
intolerableb!rden on a
member o( te bar i( 2!
st beca!se a client
2ailed toobtain wat is
so!#t by er a(ter d!e
eertion o( te re*!ired
e9orton is part, e wo!
ld be eld acco!ntable.
!ccess in a liti#ation
iscertainly not te test
o( weter or not
a lawyer ad lived !p to
isd!ties to a client. It is
eno!# tat wit te
toro!# preparation
o(te case andled by
im, e ad ta+en all
te steps to prosec!te
iss!it. I( terea(ter te
res!lt wo!ld be te (r!
stration o( is client
%sopes, tat is a ca!
se (or disappointment,
no do!bt (or im no
lesstan (or is client,
b!t not (or disciplinary
action. )e is more
to besympati"ed wit
tan condemned 7
on te ass!mption
o( co!rsetat e did
wat was epected
o( im. law library
DIS!OSITIVE
 1)ERE$&RE,
te complaint a#ainst
Attorney
8icenteEvan#elists is
dismissed. Let a
copy o( tis resol!tion
be spread onis record.