The Supreme Court held that an attorney’s failure to attend a hearing and file a formal offer of evidence, despite an intention to withdraw from the case, constitutes negligence and a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The attorney’s inaction led to the dismissal of the client’s case, highlighting the ongoing responsibility an attorney has until formal withdrawal procedures are completed. This ruling underscores the importance of fulfilling duties to clients even when transitioning representation, protecting clients from potential harm due to attorney neglect.

Abandoned Promises: When a Lawyer’s Inaction Leads to a Client’s Loss

Estela Anastacio-Briones filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta, alleging abandonment and neglect of duties. She hired Atty. Zapanta to handle three civil cases regarding a parcel of land, which were consolidated in the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. Anastacio-Briones claimed she informed Atty. Zapanta of her agreement with a real estate developer who would provide new counsel. While she intended to file a notice of discharge and appearance with an ex-parte motion to cancel a hearing, Atty. Zapanta allegedly dissuaded her, promising to submit a withdrawal of appearance himself and attend the hearing. The core legal question revolves around whether an attorney can be held liable for negligence when they intend to withdraw from a case but fail to do so properly.

On January 6, 2003, neither Atty. Zapanta nor Anastacio-Briones appeared in court, leading the trial court to deem that they waived their right to present further witnesses and to direct them to file their formal offer of evidence within ten days. Despite receiving the court’s order on January 24, 2003, Atty. Zapanta did not comply. Instead, he filed a withdrawal of appearance on March 5, 2003. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice on March 10, 2003. This dismissal led Anastacio-Briones to seek recourse against Atty. Zapanta, arguing that he had abandoned her case without her knowledge.

In response, Atty. Zapanta contended that he was discharged as counsel after the October 25, 2002, hearing. He asserted he prepared a withdrawal of appearance but Anastacio-Briones did not sign it. He further claimed he never promised to attend the January 6, 2003 hearing, suggesting Anastacio-Briones’ new lawyer was responsible for the delay in filing an entry of appearance and motion for reconsideration. However, the Supreme Court found Atty. Zapanta liable, emphasizing that his actions constituted negligence and a violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 18.03 and 18.04.

Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for a lawyer’s withdrawal as counsel in a case. Unless complied with, the attorney of record is responsible for the case and should be served with copies of judgments, orders, and pleadings.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that formal substitution of counsel is required before the court recognizes any other representation. This ensures continuity and accountability in legal proceedings. In Orcino v. Gaspar, the Supreme Court further clarified that until a lawyer’s withdrawal is approved, they remain the counsel of record and must act in the client’s best interests, including attending hearings.

The Supreme Court underscored that Atty. Zapanta’s failure to attend the January 6, 2003 hearing, despite being notified, constituted negligence. His attempt to retroactively claim discharge as counsel was undermined by his delayed withdrawal of appearance filed only on March 5, 2003. Until properly relieved, Atty. Zapanta remained responsible for the case’s conduct, and his failure to act on the court’s directive to file a formal offer of evidence was deemed inexcusable. The Court rejected Atty. Zapanta’s claim that he prepared his withdrawal of appearance early on but Anastacio-Briones refused to sign it, noting his duty to take reasonable steps to protect his client’s interests regardless.

Further, the Court emphasized the duty of an attorney to keep their client informed of case developments. It was noted that Anastacio-Briones only learned of her default in the case on May 5, 2003. This failure to inform the client of critical court orders demonstrated a lack of diligence and disregard for the client’s interests. Considering these factors, the Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) recommendation and suspended Atty. Zapanta from the practice of law for three months, underscoring the severity of the ethical breaches and their impact on the client’s legal standing.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an attorney’s failure to attend a hearing and file required documents, while intending to withdraw from the case, constitutes negligence and a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What did the complainant allege against the respondent?	The complainant, Estela Anastacio-Briones, alleged that Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta abandoned and neglected his duties as her counsel, leading to the dismissal of her case.
What was the respondent’s defense?	Atty. Zapanta claimed he was effectively discharged as counsel before the critical hearing and that the complainant’s new lawyer was responsible for the issues that led to the case’s dismissal.
What is the proper procedure for an attorney to withdraw from a case?	According to Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney must either obtain written consent from the client filed in court or, without client consent, seek court approval after notice and hearing.
Why was the respondent found liable despite claiming he was discharged?	The Court found that because Atty. Zapanta did not properly withdraw his appearance, he remained the counsel of record and responsible for the case.
What specific violations did the respondent commit?	Atty. Zapanta violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require a lawyer to serve with competence and diligence, not neglect legal matters, and keep the client informed.
What penalty was imposed on the respondent?	Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta was suspended from the practice of law for three months.
What is the attorney’s duty regarding informing the client?	An attorney has a duty to inform the client of the status of their case and respond within a reasonable time to the client’s requests for information.

This case illustrates the stringent standards expected of attorneys regarding diligence and communication with clients. By failing to properly withdraw and neglecting to keep his client informed, Atty. Zapanta faced disciplinary action, highlighting the critical importance of adhering to ethical responsibilities within the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES vs. ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA, A.C. No. 6266, November 16, 2006