Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions > [A.C. No. 4342 : March 24, 2008] VIRGILIO OZOA, ET AL. V. ATTY. EMMANUEL A. AKUT :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 March 2008:

"A.C. No. 4342 (Virgilio Ozoa, et al. v. Atty. Emmanuel A. Akut)

Complainants Virgilio Ozoa, Cristina Abad, Fidelina Ponce, Priscilla Compra, Cerila Eduria, Aguedo Gacuma, Mindanao Baconguis, Abundio Sacal, Hermogenes Salas, Rosalio Normandia, Jose Eyas, and Fortunata A�ana seek the disbarment of respondent Atty. Emmanuel A. Akut, for the latter's failure to inform his clients, herein complaints, of the unfavorable decision of the court of Appeals (CA) in Civil Case No. 90-515 for Injuction that went on appeal as CA-G.R. CV No. 34847.

Atty. Akut is the lawyer of complainants in two cases, Civil Case No. 91-516 for Quieting of Title and/or Reconveyance with Annulments of Title and Damages still pending before the Regional Trial Courts, Branch 22 in Cagayan de Oro City; and Civil Case No. 90-515 for Injunction. Atty. Akut filed the injunction case when complainants allegedly were faced with a Second Writ of Execution issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to enforce a decision of the Bureau Lands that had long been final and executory.

According to complainants, Atty. Akut received the unfavorable decision dated July 13, 1994 in the injunction case on July 24, 1994 but they learned of the said decision only more than a month after, on August 25, 1994. Because of this, they lost the chance to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court because the reglementary period within which to file said petition had lapsed. According to complainants, Atty. Akut deliberately withheld the information from them so they would lose the case and so he could share the one-half of the attorney's fees of the opposing party's counsel that was why Atty. Akut had been eager in advising them to amicably settle the case which they refused to do.

Atty. Akut denied the accusations against him. He explained that he had advised his clients to amicably settle because to his mind, it was the best thing to do. He explained that his clients' title was derived from a Simeon Eduria who had alredy lost to his clients' opponent in a final decision of the CA and he felt that his clients could also lose their case. He also denied that he had not informed his clients of the decision in the injunction case. He said that he received the decision on July 13, 1994, and between July 19 and 22, 1994, Ozoa's daughter-in-law had met with him in his office and he gave instruction to her to let Ozoa come to his office, bring his appearance fee. When Ozoa failed to see him, he thought that Ozoa was finally convinced that the injunction case had already become moot and academic. It was only on August 25, 1994 that the Ozoas met with him. Atty. Akut said that he explained to the Ozoas that the injunction case, he was willing to pursue another case for quieting of title for them.

Based on the affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, the Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Akut failed to inform timely his clients of his receipt of the decision of the CA, allowing the decision to lapse into finality and precluding his clients from filing a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

We agree with the conclusion of the Commission on Bar Discipline that the lack of conscientiousness of Atty. Akut does not meet the standard required in Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that provides:

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Even if the case for injunction was ancillary remedy, Atty. Akut's failure to timely inform his clients of the decision cannot be countenanced. Neither does his clients; failure to go to his office nor their non-payment of his appearance fee justify his neglect. It is the duty of an attorney to notify his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof.^[1] The client is entitled to fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by which his interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted. Keeping the client fully informed of important developments of his case will minimize occasions for misunderstanding or loss of trust and confidence in the attorney.^[2] Atty. Akut's behavior, if allowed unpunished, would contribute to the erosion of public confidence in the law and in lawyers.

We also find that the charge that Atty. Akut intentionally withheld that complaints were prejudiced and incurred damage by the decision becoming final.

We, therefore, find it sufficient to reprimand Atty. Akut for his lapse in informing his clients of the decision in the injunction case.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby REPRIMANDS Atty. Akut with a sterm warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severly.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] See Alcala v. De Vera, Adm. Case No. 620, March 21, 1974, 56 SCRA 30.

^[2] Oparel Sr. v. Abaria, Adm. Case No. 959, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 128, 130-131.