EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA, Respondent.

A.C. No. 9387

June 20, 2012.

(Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1562)

This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez (complainant) against her lawyer, Atty.
Venancio B. adilla (respondent) of adilla adilla Ba!tista "aw #ffices, for his alleged negligence in
thehandling of her case. $n a %ecision

dated &' !ne & &, penned by !dge *osmari %. +arandang ( !dge +arandang), the *T+
ordered that the %eed of ale e-ec!ted in fa or of complainant be cancelled/ and that the latter pay
the complainant therein, Elisa %!igan (%!igan), attorney0s fees and moral damages.+omplainant and her
h!sband filed their 1otice of Appeal with the *T+. Thereafter, the +o!rt of Appeals (+A) ordered them to
file their Appellants0 Brief. They chose respondent to represent them in the case. #ntheir behalf, he
filed a 2emorand!m on Appeal instead of an Appellants0 Brief. Th!s, %!igan filed a 2otion to %ismiss the
Appeal. The +A granted the 2otion in a *esol!tion dated 34 %ecember & 5. 1o 2otion for
*econsideration (2*) of the *esol!tion dismissing the appeal was filed by the co!ple. +omplainant claims
that beca!se respondent

i'nored

the *esol!tion, he acted with 6deceit, !nfaithf!lnessamo!nting to malpractice of law.7 +omplainant and
her h!sband failed to file an appeal, beca!se respondent ne er

in(ormed

them of the ad erse decision. +omplainant f!rther claims that she as8ed respondent 6se eral times7
abo!t the stat!s of the appeal, b!t 6despite in9!iries he deliberately withheld response to the damage
and pre:!dice of the spo!ses.

)ss!e&

;hether or not *!les 3'. &, 3'. 5 and 3'. < were iolated

R!lin'&
*!le

$8.#"

of the +ode pro ides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter witho!t ade9!ate preparation.
;hile it is tr!e that respondent was not complainant0s lawyer from the trial to the appellate co!rt stage,
this fact did not e-c!se him from his d!ty to diligently st!dy a case he had agreed to handle. $f he felt he
did not ha e eno!gh time to st!dy the pertinent matters in ol ed, as he was approached by
complainant0s h!sband only two days before the e-piration of the period for filing the Appellant0s Brief,
respondent sho!ld ha e filed a motion for e-tension of time to file the proper pleading instead of
whate er pleading he co!ld come !p with, :!st to 6beat the deadline set by the +o!rt of Appeals.7 2oreo
er, respondent does not deny that he was gi en notice of the fact that he filed the wrong pleading.
Howe er, instead of e-plaining his side by filing a comment, as ordered by the appellate co!rt, he chose
to ignore the +A0s #rder. He claims that he was !nder the pres!mption that complainant and her
h!sband had already settled the case, beca!se he had not heard from the h!sband since the filing of the
latter0s 2emorand!m of Appeal.This e-planation does not e-c!se respondent0s actions. =irst of all, there
were se eral remedies that respondent co!ld ha ea ailed himself of from the moment he recei
ed the 1otice from the +A to the moment he recei ed the disbarment +omplaint filed against him. B!t
beca!se of his negligence, he chose to sit on the case and do nothing. econd, respondent, as co!nsel,
had the d!ty to inform his clients of the stat!s of their case. His fail!re to do so amo!nted to a iolation
of *!le 3'. < of the +ode, which reads>

R!le $8.#*

? A lawyer shall 8eep the client informed of the stat!s of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client0s re9!est for information.

DUTIES OF A LAWYER, Failure to apply proper legal matters

Emilia R. Hernandez v. Atty. Venancio B. Padilla

A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012

Sereno, J.:

FACTS:

The records show that Emilia Hernandez and her husband were the respondents in an
ejectment case filed against them by Duigan with the RTC which ruled in favor of complainant.

Hernandez appealed with Court of Appeals ordering them to file their Appellants’ Brief. On their

behalf, Atty. Venancio Padilla filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief.

Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal which the CA granted.

A disbarment case was then filed by Emilia Hernandez against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B.

Padilla, for negligence in the handling of her case. It was claimed that by ignoring the resolution,

the lawyer acted with "deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law". It was also raised

that when asked about the status of the appeal, Atty. Padilla failed to inform them of the adverse

decision.

In his defense, respondent argued that he was not the lawyer of complainant as he had never

met the complainant. The respondent claimed that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because

he honestly believed that it is this pleading which was required.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Padilla has neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by improperly

submitting a wrong motion.

HELD:

Yes. Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it was

respondent’s duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. As a

litigator, he was expected to know the proper procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads that a

lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education

programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical

4/29/2019 Legal Ethics Cases

https://docslide.net/documents/legal-ethics-cases-566f41397f19f.html 2/2

training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and

jurisprudence.
The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint him with the facts of the case does

not excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any

legal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was not

complainant’s lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from

his duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough

time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainant’s husband

only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellant’s Brief, respondent

should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever

pleading he could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.

The failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment is negligence on his part.

Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client’s case. Lawyers

should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their

duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.

Thus, Atty. Venancio Padilla is suspended him from the practice of law for 6 months