Title
Venterez vs. Cosme
Case
A.C. No. 7421
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2007
Atty. Cosme failed to file an appeal or motion for reconsideration, improperly withdrew from the case, and neglected his clients' interests, leading to a three-month suspension for gross negligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91332)

Background of the Case

In Civil Case No. 981, the MTC rendered a decision against the complainants on February 25, 2004. Atty. Cosme received a copy of this decision on March 3, 2004. Following the decision, the complainants directed Atty. Cosme to file a Motion for Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but he failed to do so by the 15-day deadline, which expired on March 18, 2004. Consequently, complainant Elisa V. Venterez engaged another lawyer who subsequently filed the Motion for Reconsideration on March 19, 2004, signed by Venterez herself since the new lawyer had not entered his appearance.

Events Following the Decision

The MTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration on March 23, 2004, although Atty. Cosme was not informed of this denial. On March 31, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, to which Atty. Cosme also failed to respond. The MTC granted this motion on April 23, 2004, leading to the issuance of a Writ of Execution on April 28, 2004. Notably, Atty. Cosme filed a Notice of Retirement as Counsel on May 3, 2004, nearly two months after the initial decision had been rendered.

Respondent’s Defense

In his answer to the complaint, Atty. Cosme denied the allegations and claimed that Inocencia V. Ramirez's son, Salvador Ramirez, had informed him of the withdrawal from representation and that he had already turned over the case records to him. Atty. Cosme asserted that another lawyer had prepared the Motion for Reconsideration and that, therefore, he was not liable for the failure to act on behalf of the complainants. He maintained that the last day to appeal was March 19, 2004, owing to the receipt of the decision a day later than claimed by the complainants.

Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

Following a hearing on February 15, 2006, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Cosme guilty of gross negligence. The Commissioner’s report recommended a three-month suspension from the practice of law, emphasizing that Atty. Cosme failed to pursue remedies for the complainants after the adverse decision from the MTC. The IBP Board of Governors later adopted this recommendation.

Ethical Obligations of Attorneys

The court reiterated that once an attorney agrees to represent a client, they are required to fulfill their duty with fidelity. An attorney cannot simply abandon a client without reasonable cause and must provide appropriate notice. The court emphasized that an attorney's professional relationship does not terminate without formal notification to the client and proper withdrawal procedures. In this case, Atty. Cosme’s failure to notify the court or the complainants of his with

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.