A.C. No. 7421 - Venterez vs. Cosme

Complainants (Eliza V. Venterez, Genaro de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma, and Ramon de Vera) contracted respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme for legal representation in Civil Case No. 981 concerning a declaration of ownership with damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan.
Respondent represented the complainants (who were defendants in the case) until a decision was rendered by the MTC on February 25, 2004.

The MTC rendered a decision against the complainants, and respondent received a copy of the decision on March 3, 2004.
It is alleged that complainants instructed respondent to file a Motion for Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but respondent failed or refused to do so within the 15-day period, which expired on March 18, 2004.

Complainant Elisa V. Venterez later engaged another lawyer to file a Motion for Reconsideration, which was signed by her and filed on March 19, 2004.
The MTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration on March 23, 2004.
A Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution was filed on March 31, 2004; respondent did not file any opposition or comment despite having received a copy. This motion was eventually granted on April 23, 2004, with a Writ of Execution issued on April 28, 2004.
Despite these developments and being still the counsel of record, respondent filed a Notice of Retirement of Counsel on May 3, 2004, effectively attempting to withdraw from the case after the lapse of the appeal period.

Feeling aggrieved by the respondent’s conduct, the complainants filed an administrative complaint charging abandonment, gross negligence, and dereliction of duty.
A hearing was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on February 15, 2006, where Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa submitted a report on April 11, 2006.
The report recommended a penalty of three (3) months suspension for respondent, based on the findings of gross negligence and failure to properly protect the interests of his clients.

Respondent contended that he was informed by Salvador Ramirez (son of complainant Inocencia V. Ramirez) that the case was being withdrawn as another lawyer had been engaged, thereby justifying his turnover of records.
He further argued that a Motion for Reconsideration was already prepared by a different lawyer and that he had acted on the basis of the information and timelines provided, maintaining that he had already withdrawn from the case.
Respondent claimed that upon being served with the Motion for Writ of Execution, he promptly notified Salvador Ramirez, only to learn later that proper steps for formal withdrawal had not been executed.

Whether respondent’s failure to file the necessary remedial motions (Motion for Reconsideration or Notice of Appeal) after the adverse MTC decision constituted gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

Did the respondent abandon his clients by not taking any post-decision remedial measures despite being instructed to do so?
Is the respondent liable for failing to protect his clients’ interests by allowing the lapse of the appeal period?

Whether the respondent’s act of turning over the case records and claiming withdrawal from the case absolved him of his continuing duty as counsel of record.

Can a lawyer unilaterally assume that the turnover of records terminates his duty without proper notice or formal withdrawal?
Did the respondent comply with the procedural requirements for a valid withdrawal as mandated by the rules of court and the Code of Professional Responsibility?

The sufficiency of the procedural and ethical requirements for a lawyer’s withdrawal from a case.

Was the respondent’s withdrawal properly communicated and approved by the court or by the complainant’s written consent?
Did the circumstances under which the respondent claimed withdrawal meet the criteria for “good cause” as provided by ethical guidelines?