Aranda Vs Elayda Digest.docx

Spouses Aranda v. Atty. Elayda (A.C. No 7907, DEC 15,2010) FACTS:

An administrative complaint filed by the spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda (spouses Aranda) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, charging their former counsel, Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda (Atty. Elayda), with gross negligence or gross misconduct in handling their case. The spouses Aranda were the defendants in Civil Case filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72.The spouses Aranda hired Atty Elayda to be their counsel for their civil case. They filed a complaint against the respondent for his failure to follow elementary norms and civil procedure and evidence. However, to their surprise in July 2006, an adverse judgment was issued against them, thus they lost possession of their car. Apparently, their counsel never appeared in court for them. Atty. Elayda failed to inform the spouses of the date of hearing as well as the order of judgment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was interposed by the lawyer as well.In his defense, Atty. Elayda said that it was the spouses who never went to court; that the spouses neglected to check on their case in court; that one time when their case was scheduled, he even notified the court stenographer to notify him if the spouses are in court so that he could be there for them as he was in another court branch for another case.An investigation was conducted and the result finding Atty. Elayda guilty of gross negligence. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be disciplined. HELD: Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was remiss and negligent in handling the Aranda case. Although it is true that the client and their counsel must equally share the burden of communication, it is the primary 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 simply wait for his clients to make an inquiry about the developments in their case. Close coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to adequately prepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of the case. His act is clearly a violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As stated on the Canon, a lwayer shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him and he shall serve his client with competence and diligence.His excuse that he did not appear in court because the spouses failed to appear in court is not tenable. His attendance at the hearing should not be made to depend on the whether the spouses Aranda will come or not.ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.