Aranda Case.docx

Aranda case FACTS: Petitioner spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda hired respondent Attorney Emmanuel Elayda to represent them in a civil case in 2006. In July of said year, petitioners to their surprise received an unfavorable decision issued by the court, resulting to the forfeiture of their car. The petitioners claim that respondent Attorney did not inform them of the schedule of hearing and that no order of judgment was given to them despite having receipt of the order dated February 2006. Moreover, they allege that they have been deprived of their right to present evidence and their right to appeal to said case because of the gross negligence of their counsel. Respondent Atty. Elayda contended that it was the petitioner’s lack of participation and cooperation that lead to the adverse decision of the court and that they were the ones who did not appear in court given that Atty. Elayda was just in another courtroom and asked the stenographer to notify him if the spouses have arrived. Spouses have never inquired as to the status of their case. ISSUE: Whether or not Attorney Elayda should be given a disciplinary action. HELD: Yes. While it is true that communication is a shared responsibility in the client and lawyer relation, it is the prime duty of the counsel to inform the client of the status of their case in court and the orders which have been issued by the court. He cannot just wait for his clients to make an inquiry about the status of the case, for close communication is vital for its preparation. Also, a lawyer’s attendance must not be dependent to the attendance of his clients. Thus, his excuse that he did not appear because the spouses did not appear cannot be countenanced. Among others, Atty. Elayda has violated Canon 19 of the Code of professional Responsibility which provides: “A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.” A 6 month suspension was recommended by the IBP Board of Governors and was subsequently adopted by the court.