G.R. No. 161419 - Encinares vs. Achero

The case involves complainants Jaime Curimatmat, et al. versus respondent Atty. Felipe G. Gojar, who was accused of lacking fidelity to his clients’ cause.
The controversy originated from the handling of various labor-related cases involving former employees of Uniwide Sales, Inc., where the attorney’s representation was called into question.

On April 25, 1995, Atty. Gojar was administratively charged with failing to properly represent his clients.
Specific complaints include:

Filing a petition for review in G.R. No. 113201 for “Associated Trade Unions, et al. vs. Honorable Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al.” without proper client consent.
Misrepresenting the status of filed cases by asserting that petitions were pending when, in fact, decisions had already been rendered.
Deliberate inaction regarding the timely filing of appeals in NLRC cases, notably NLRC Case No. NCR-00-12-07755-93 involving an Unfair Labor Practice claim and another case involving money claims.

In one instance, Atty. Gojar informed the clients that the petition for review was still pending with the Supreme Court while failing to mention that a dismissal motion had been filed without their consent.
In another case (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-04380-93), he allegedly concealed the fact that a decision had already been rendered on September 30, 1994, thereby preventing timely appeal action.
The complainants maintained that, on being informed of adverse decisions, they had already opted for new legal counsel, yet the attorney persisted in handling their cases without proper authority.

The matter was referred to the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, initiating hearings on several dates (October 1, 1996; November 19, 1996; March 14, 1997; May 9, 1997; June 20, 1997; and July 14, 1997).
Despite being duly notified, Atty. Gojar opted not to appear at these hearings, leading the complainants to present their evidence ex parte.
On November 5, 1998, the IBP Board recommended a six-month suspension for his alleged failure to demonstrate the required fidelity to his clients’ cause.

Whether Atty. Felipe G. Gojar acted with the required fidelity and diligence expected of a lawyer in representing his clients by:

Failing to timely file appeals in labor cases pending before the NLRC.
Filing a petition for review in G.R. No. 113201 without obtaining proper consent from his clients.

Whether the attorney’s conduct—particularly his alleged misrepresentations about the status of cases and the submission of motions without client approval—amounted to a breach of his ethical obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Whether the shortcomings in his performance, which led to the recommendation for a six-month suspension, should instead be met with a lesser sanction considering this was his first offense.