Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Spouses Aranda v. Atty. Elayda (A.C.

No 7907, DEC 15,2010)


FACTS:

An administrative complaint filed by the spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda (spouses
Aranda) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline, charging their former counsel, Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda (Atty. Elayda), with
gross negligence or gross misconduct in handling their case. The spouses Aranda were
the defendants in Civil Case filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo
City, Branch 72.The spouses Aranda hired Atty Elayda to be their counsel for their civil
case. They filed a complaint against the respondent for his failure to follow elementary
norms and civil procedure and evidence. However, to their surprise in July 2006, an
adverse judgment was issued against them, thus they lost possession of their car.
Apparently, their counsel never appeared in court for them. Atty. Elayda failed to inform
the spouses of the date of hearing as well as the order of judgment. No motion for
reconsideration or appeal was interposed by the lawyer as well.In his defense, Atty.
Elayda said that it was the spouses who never went to court; that the spouses
neglected to check on their case in court; that one time when their case was scheduled,
he even notified the court stenographer to notify him if the spouses are in court so that
he could be there for them as he was in another court branch for another case.An
investigation was conducted and the result finding Atty. Elayda guilty of gross
negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was remiss and negligent in handling
the Aranda case. Although it is true that the client and their counsel must equally share
the burden of communication, it is the primary duty of the counsel to inform the client of
the status of their case in court and the orders which have been issued by the court. He
cannot simply wait for his clients to make an inquiry about the developments in their
case. Close coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to
adequately prepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of the
case. His act is clearly a violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As stated on the Canon, a lwayer shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him and he shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.His excuse that he did not appear in court because the spouses failed to
appear in court is not tenable. His attendance at the hearing should not be made to
depend on the whether the spouses Aranda will come or not.ATTY. EMMANUEL F.
ELAYDA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be
dealt with more severely.

S-ar putea să vă placă și