WEEK 7 | CASE #1

SPOUSES ADECER VS. AKUT

[Adm. Case No. 4809]
NATURE OF ACTION SPOUSES WILLIAM ADECER and TERESITA P. ADECER, Complainants,
Petition for disbarment vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL AKUT.
KEYWORDS ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable for a violating the
principles of legal ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility in filing
the Petition for Probation beyond the reglementary period.
VIOLATION/S FACTS:
Complainant were charged with a criminal case, committing a
CPR CPRA crime punishable under Art. 318 of RPC (other Deceits) before the MTC.
Canons | Canon IV | Respondent was their legal counsel in the said case.
Rules Sec. Respondent had 15 days from 25 March 1997, or until 9 April 1997, to
1 file either an appeal or a petition for probation in behalf of the complainants.
3 (1) However, over a month after the Decision had become final and executory–
4 (1) that respondent filed a Petition for Probation.
6 The MTCC issued a Writ of Execution On 19 May 1997. The next day,
NOTES: a warrant of arrest was served on complainants and they were incarcerated.
Respondent filed a Memorandum in Support of the Petition for
Probation, but was later denied by the MTC stating that ‘the law does not
permit the grant of probation after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal’.
It appears that complainants filed a Motion for Reconsideration with an Atty.
Rogelio Zosa Bagabuyo as pro bono counsel for the complainants but the
same was denied.
Complainants filed a pleading entitled Urgent Omnibus Motions to
Recall Writ of Execution and for a Second Motion for Reconsideration with
Leave of Court. In answer to "insinuations" in said pleading, respondent, as
former counsel of the complainants, filed a Manifestation and claimed that
during the time complainants desisted from approaching him, he could not
make a choice in behalf of the complainants between the remedy of appeal
and the benefits of probation; recounted that complainants came to his office
only a month after the decision had become final and executory, with money
to pay for the civil liability.
While serving their sentence at the Lumbia Detention and
Rehabilitation Center, complainants filed the instant administrative case
praying that respondent be disbarred and ordered to reimburse
complainants of expenses, with interest and damages.
RULING:
Yes. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. He shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation. Nor shall he neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of his
impression that one case or hearing is more important than the other.
The Court commiserate with respondent for the loss of his wife, and appreciate fully that during the
period of a man’s existence when the sense of mortality and loss is most closely felt more then ever, it would
appear that no responsibility is more important than tending to loved ones. However, such is the lawyer’s
charge that no personal consideration should stand in the way of performing a legal duty. In these situations,
it is only fair that a lawyer should lighten his case load lest he prejudice his clients’ cases
The liberty of one’s clients is not to be taken lightly, whether the sentence is for destierro or reclusion
perpetua. Litigants entrust their properties, liberties, and even lives, in the hands of their lawyers, who must
protect these values with utmost zeal and vigilance.
The laymen’s lack of knowledge of substantive and procedural law is the exact reason why they hire the
services of counsel. It was counsel’s responsibility to look after the welfare of his clients by communicating
with them to determine whether they would take the avenue of an appeal or a petition for probation and to
thereafter prepare and file the relevant pleading.
 The lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and he should provide
a quality of services at least equal to that which lawyers generally would expect of a competent lawyer in the
like situation. By agreeing to be his client’s counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or
that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to
do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor, and his client may
reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.