Scribd
Upload
171 views2 pages

Francisco Vs Flores Case Digest

Atty. Francisco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Flores for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility alleging dishonesty and negligence. Francisco had prevailed in an eviction case against Flores' clients, the Finezas. Flores was found to have acted negligently by not informing his clients of adverse rulings and the expiration of appeal periods. Flores was also inconsistent in his statements to the court. He was found guilty of violating rules regarding candor to the court, procedure, and competence/diligence. As a result, Flores was suspended from practice for two years.

Uploaded by

Epalan Justine Angelica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
171 views2 pages

Francisco Vs Flores Case Digest

Atty. Francisco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Flores for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility alleging dishonesty and negligence. Francisco had prevailed in an eviction case against Flores' clients, the Finezas. Flores was found to have acted negligently by not informing his clients of adverse rulings and the expiration of appeal periods. Flores was also inconsistent in his statements to the court. He was found guilty of violating rules regarding candor to the court, procedure, and competence/diligence. As a result, Flores was suspended from practice for two years.

Uploaded by

Epalan Justine Angelica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

Francisco vs Flores

Case Digest

Atty. Pablo Francisco: Complainant

Atty. Romeo Flores: Respondent

Facts:

 Atty. Francisco filed an administrative complaint against atty. Flores for violations of canon
10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility alleging dishonesty and negligence on
the part of atty. Flores.
 Atty. Franciso alleged that he filed a complaint for forcible entry against the client of atty.
Flores, Ranier and Teodora Fineza. The MTC ruled in favor of the Fineza and his appeal in
RTC was denied.
 He then filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the RTC and it was granted. The Fineza were
ordered to vacate the property and to pay rentals.
 Atty. Flores filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s order granting the Motion
of Reconsideration of Atty. Francisco. It was denied on March 26, 2009. He received a copy
of the RTC’s decision on April 3, 2009 while the Fineza’s received theirs on April 7, 2009.
 On May 20, 2009, the OIC of the RTC issued a certification that the order of the court dated
January 23, 2009 has never been amended, appealed or modified and, considered final and
executory.
 Atty Francisco filed a Motion of Issuance of Writ of Execution on June 3, 2009. He claimed
that the motion is personally served to Atty. Flores on the same day. He also alleges that the
hearing of the said motion scheduled June 17 and 24, 2009 was attended by Atty. Flores and
the Fineza’s. The Motion of Issuance was granted and a writ of execution was issued.
 The Fineza’s filed a petition for relief from judgement, signed by the Finezas but not with
atty. Flores and it was dismissed by the RTC
 On February 8, 2010, the Fineza’s were evicted. Their personal property was levied upon,
then sold in execution to settle their judgement debt.
 Atty. Francisco contends that atty. Flores was negligent when “he did not make himself
available” during the period when his clients could still question the trial court’s decision.
 Atty. Flores alleges that he was on vacation from February 9, 2009 to May 2009 and claims
that he only learned about the order when he received a copy of atty. Francisco’s Motion of
Reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Flores violates canon 10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

Yes

The respondent is guilty of violating canon 10, rule 10.01, 10.03 and canon 18, rule 18.03

Canon 10- A lawyer owe’s candor, fairness and good faith to the court
Rule 10.01- A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall be
mislead or allow the court to be misled by any office

The respondent did not state the exact date when he received a copy of the Motion for Issuance of a
Writ of Execution in his position paper. He alleges that he immediately informed the Fineza’s about
the matter but later on contradicted himself when he stated “that he has no personal knowledge as
to when the Fineza’s learned or had knowledge of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration”.

The inconsistencies in his statements are sufficient to show the he is guilty of violating canon 10, rule
10.01.

The court also finds the respondent violated rule 10.03

Rule 10.03- A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.

The respondent admitted that he assisted the Fineza’s in filing the petition for relief from
judgement. But moved to withdraw the petition after realizing that it was filed erroneously before
another court.

Furthermore, this court finds the respondent guilty of violating canon 18, rule18.03

Canon 18- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence

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

The general rule is notice to counsel is also notice to client. Thus when his office received a copy of
the trial courts orders, his clients is also deemed as having been notified on the same day. Also his
failure to immediately update his client and act upon the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration,
which resulted to the expiration period of a filing for a petition of relief from judgement is clearly
negligence on his part.

The court notice that despite being previously suspended for practice of law for two years (Serzo v
Atty Flores), he once again violated his oath as a lawyer.

Respondent is found guilty of the charges and is suspended from the practice of law for two years.

You might also like