Cantiller vs Potenciano(180 SCRA 246)

Facts:

Atty. Potenciano was charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller which decision of the court was against the latter. Cantiller then asked the Atty. Potenciano to handle their case. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a "hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petitionfor annulment of judgment.Respondent demanded from the complainant P l,000.00 as attorney's fee. Howeverthe judgeof the said court asked the respondent to withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship. Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in locatingthe judge.

Issue:Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

Held:

Respondent failed toexercisedue diligence in protecting his client's interests. He had knowledge that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement. When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure toexercisedue diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of thetrustwhich the client had reposed on him. Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients.

Cantiller vs Potenciano(180 SCRA 246)

Facts:

Atty. Potenciano was charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller. The court issued a decision against the latter. A notice to vacate was then issued against Cantiller.Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petitionfor annulment of judgment.Thepetitionwas filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila. Respondent demanded from the complainant P l,000.00 as attorney's fee. Howeverthe judgeof the said court asked the respondent to withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship. Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed inlocatingthe judge.

Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand of the latter. The amount was allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and P 1,000.00 to coverthe expensesof the suit needed in order for the complainant to retain thepossession of the property. But later on Cantiller found out that the amounts were not necessary to be paid. A demand was made against Potenciano but the latter did not answer and the amounts were not returned.

Contrary to Potencianos promise that he would secure a restraining order, he withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.

Issue:Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

Held:

When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure toexercisedue diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of thetrustwhich the client had reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementaryprinciples ofprofessional ethics.

The Court finds that respondent failed toexercisedue diligence in protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary businessproposition. It is a matter of public interest.