Title
Canoy vs. Ortiz
Case
A.C. No. 5485
Decision Date
Mar 16, 2005
Atty. Ortiz neglected client Elmer Canoy’s illegal dismissal case, failing to file a position paper or inform him of the dismissal, despite his election as City Councilor. The Supreme Court suspended him for one month for violating professional duties.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5485)

Respondent’s Explanation and Claims

In his comment, Atty. Ortiz recounted long-standing practice representing indigent clients and providing legal assistance via a radio program. He asserted that he had prepared Canoy’s position paper but the labor arbiter had already issued the dismissal order before submission. He admitted the statutory period to file had lapsed and attributed the lapse to preoccupation after his election as City Councilor of Bacolod City. Ortiz claimed that his office policy required clients to follow up their matters given the volume of indigent clients and limited staff, and he suggested Canoy had later told him he had retained another lawyer.

IBP Investigation, Findings, and Recommendation

The complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant was referred to the IBP for investigation. Although Canoy later attempted to withdraw the complaint, the IBP proceeded with investigation. The investigating commissioner concluded that Ortiz had failed to exercise the degree of competence and diligence required of counsel and recommended a reprimand. The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted that recommendation with modification to add a warning that repetition of the same negligence would be dealt with more severely.

Professional Duties Under the Code of Professional Responsibility

The Court emphasized the applicable canons and rules: Canon 17 (fidelity to the client), Canon 18 (competence and diligence) including Rule 18.03 (a lawyer shall not neglect a matter entrusted to him) and Rule 18.04 (keeping the client informed), and Canon 22 including Rule 22.02 (duties upon withdrawal or discharge — immediate turnover and cooperation with successor counsel). These provisions impose an affirmative duty on counsel to prosecute entrusted matters diligently, to timely communicate status to the client, and to effect an orderly transfer if withdrawing.

Court’s Analysis: Failure to File and Breach of Duty

The Court found that Ortiz should have filed Canoy’s position paper within the required period and that his failure to do so violated Rule 18.03. Once counsel undertakes representation, fidelity, competence and diligence are required; the client is entitled to the exercise of the lawyer’s utmost learning and ability. Ortiz’s admitted lapse in timely filing, compounded by his failure to inform the client of the inability to file or of the dismissal, constituted a dereliction of professional duty. The fact that the dismissal was without prejudice did not mitigate the violation because failure to file the position paper is itself a breach under Rule 18.03.

Remedies Available Had Counsel Informed the Client

The Court noted that timely disclosure by counsel of inability to file could have allowed remedial measures: a motion for extension, retention of collaborating counsel, substitution of counsel, or refiling where appropriate. Because Ortiz neither filed nor informed Canoy, these options were unavailable, and Canoy only became aware of the dismissal nearly two years later. The absence of notice or coordination effectively deprived the client of protection and avenues to preserve his claim.

Election to Public Office and Its Effect on the Attorney-Client Relationship

The Court addressed Ortiz’s election as City Councilor. While the Code permits withdrawal if an attorney accepts public office and some public offices are statutorily barred from practicing law (e.g., governors and mayors under Section 90(a) of the Local Government Code), city councilors are generally permitted to practice subject to limitations (Section 90(b)). Even where withdrawal is permissible, the severance of the attorney-client relationship is not effective absent proper notice to the client and to the tribunal; Rule 22.02 requires immediate turnover of papers and cooperation with successor counsel. Ortiz’s asserted reliance on an alleged new counsel for Canoy did not substitute for the affirmative duties of notice and orderly transfer; the record showed no meaningful coordination and a lengthy period of client ignorance.

Allocation of Responsibility Between Lawyer and Client

The Court rejected Ortiz’s attempt to shift responsibility to Canoy for not following up. The professional obligation rests on counsel to keep the client informed; it is not the client’s duty to overcome counsel’s failure

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms