Scribd
Upload
163 views

Ortiz

Elmer Canoy filed a complaint against his former lawyer Atty. Jose Max Ortiz with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for malpractice and misconduct. Canoy had hired Ortiz to represent him in a case against his employer Coca Cola Bottler for illegal dismissal. However, Ortiz failed to file required position papers, resulting in the case being dismissed. Ortiz admitted fault but claimed he was preoccupied with his new duties as a city councilor. The IBP investigation found Ortiz violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility regarding competence, diligence, client communication, and withdrawal of services. As a result, Ortiz was suspended from practice for one month.

Uploaded by

Kaye Lambino
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
163 views

Ortiz

Elmer Canoy filed a complaint against his former lawyer Atty. Jose Max Ortiz with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for malpractice and misconduct. Canoy had hired Ortiz to represent him in a case against his employer Coca Cola Bottler for illegal dismissal. However, Ortiz failed to file required position papers, resulting in the case being dismissed. Ortiz admitted fault but claimed he was preoccupied with his new duties as a city councilor. The IBP investigation found Ortiz violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility regarding competence, diligence, client communication, and withdrawal of services. As a result, Ortiz was suspended from practice for one month.

Uploaded by

Kaye Lambino
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[A. C. No. 5485.

March 16, 2005]

ELMER CANOY, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ, respondent.

Facts:

A Complaint[1] dated 10 April 2001 was filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant by Elmer Canoy
(Canoy) accusing Atty. Jose Max Ortiz (Atty. Ortiz) of misconduct and malpractice.

Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer Coca Cola Bottler with the NLRC with
Atty. Ortiz as his counsel. Since Canoy was unable to get an update with his case through Atty. Ortiz, he
decided to follow up his case with the NLRC. He was shocked to learn that his case was dismissed 2 years
way back for failure to prosecute for not having submitted position papers.

Atty. Ortiz’ Comment, he admitted that there was failure to timely file the position paper but it was due
to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City 'he was frankly preoccupied with both his
functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer. Eventually, 'his desire to help was
beyond physical limitations, and he withdrew from his other cases and his free legal services.

The IBP investigated the case despite the filing of Canoy for motion to withdraw because of the rule that
the investigation of a case shall not be interrupted or terminated by reason of withdrawal of the
charges.

Issue: whether or not Atty. Ortiz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held: yes, the following canons are

CANON 17A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

...

Rule 18.03A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client's request for information.

...

CANON 22A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE
APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

...
Rule 22.02 ' A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn
over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the
orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing Canoy to refile the case, hardly serves to
mitigate the liability of Atty. Ortiz, as the failure to file the position paper is per se a violation of Rule
18.03

Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortiz's election as a City Councilor of Bacolod
City, as his adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior. The
Code of Professional Responsibility does allow a lawyer to withdraw his legal services if the lawyer is
elected or appointed to a public office. Statutes expressly prohibit the occupant of particular public
offices from engaging in the practice of law, such as governors and mayors, and in such instance, the
attorney-client relationship is terminated. However, city councilors are allowed to practice their
profession or engage in any occupation except during session hours, and in the case of lawyers such as
Atty. Ortiz, subject to certain prohibitions which are not relevant to this case. In such case, the lawyer
nevertheless has the choice to withdraw his/her services. Still, the severance of the relation of attorney-
client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that
purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until
then, the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.y

Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and
leave complainant in the cold unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or
is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is
entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims
that the reason why he took no further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had
acquired the services of another counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination
between Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
(1) month from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with more
severely. Let a copy of this decision be attached to respondent's personal record in the Office of the Bar
Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all the
courts in the land.

You might also like