You are on page 1of 2

Elmer Canoy, complainant v. Atty.

Jose Max Ortiz, respondent


A.C. No. 5485 March 16, 2005

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 latter’s 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.

In his Comment, Atty. Ortiz admitted to not being able to submit the position
paper because the period within which to file it lapsed already, with arbiter
already dismissing the case, but reasoned out that his election as a Councilor of
Bacolod City made him very preoccupied with his functions. His duties as a
public servant and a lawyer are “beyond physical limitation”, said Atty. Ortiz, so
he had to withdraw from his other cases. He also claimed of not being able to
remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of the dismissal of the case,
but recalled of Canoy conveying that he already has a lawyer to handle the case.
Hence, his office did not insist on refiling the case. Atty Ortiz also pointed out that
the dismissal of Canoy’s complaint was without prejudice.

Issue

Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice

Ruling

Upon investigation of the case, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines concluded
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.” Therefore, even if Atty. Ortiz was justified in
terminating his services due to his elective position, he should have coordinated
with the new council of Canoy and turned over to the latter all papers and
property which the Client is entitled and should have cooperated with his
successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, as per Rule 22.02.

You might also like