THE Supreme Court has suspended a lawyer for one year after he failed to file an appeal memorandum for his clients in relation to an adverse ruling, which led to the dismissal of their appeal.
The Supreme Court en banc, in a July 25, 2023 resolution posted recently, also sternly warned lawyer Regal Baquerfo that repeating this offense would merit a harsher penalty.
The complaint against Baquerfo was filed by John Green, who said he paid Baquerfo for his services in connection with the unlawful detainer case filed against him and Vivian Jonkhoff. The services included mediation proceedings, said a report on abogado.ph
But Green said he was surprised to receive a decision ordering him and Jonhkoff to vacate the premises.
Baquerfo then told Green that he would appeal the judgment, and Green paid the lawyer another P5,000.
Green said he later tried to get an update from Baquerfo, but was unable to reach the latter. He later learned from the court that the appeal was dismissed due to the failure to file an appeal memorandum.
This led to Green filing an administrative complaint against Baquerfo.
The lawyer, in his defense, denied that Green engaged his services and said it was Jonkhoff who hired him for the unlawful detainer case.
Baquerfo said Jonkhoff advised him not to file an answer as she was no longer interested in opposing the complaint.
He was thus surprised when Green came to his office and said he wanted to appeal the adverse ruling. Since he thought Green was acting for himself and Jonkhoff, he filed a notice of appeal before the court.
A few weeks later, Jonkhoff informed him that he and Green had separated after a quarrel and that she wanted to file a case against him. When Green returned to his office, he told him he could no longer proceed with the case due to conflict of interest and advised him to look for another lawyer.
But the Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippine to impose a penalty on Baquerfo for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. It said he neglected a legal matter and failed to serve his client with competence and diligence.
Even if there was no clear evidence to establish that Green hired Baquerfo during the early stages of the case, it was clear that the lawyer signed and filed the notice of appeal, it said.
Once a lawyer agrees to represent a client, then the lawyer is duty bound to serve the client with utmost diligence and competence, it said.
It also said that if there had been a conflict of interest, Baquerfo should have terminated his services as Green’s counsel formally, as provided for under the Rules of Court. The court would not recognize any other counsel until there has been formal substitution of attorney, it noted.
And even if the relationship between Green and Jonhkoff has soured, there is already a lawyer-client relationship between Green and Baquerfo, the Supreme Court said. It does not matter if this was done expressly or impliedly, since Baquerfo had agreed to render services to Jonkhoff and Green, it added.
“A lawyer is therefore expected to observe a high standard of legal competence. He or she must dedicate one’s full attention and skill to a case, regardless of its significance and of whether the case was accepted for a fee or not,” it said.
By failing to file the appeal memorandum, Baquerfo fell short of the circumspection and diligence required of lawyers, it said.
It also said Baquerfo’s offense was a serious one because his clients were unable to seek recourse from an adverse ruling.
