CANON 18: Rule 18.

03
and 18.04
CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
 Rule 18.03
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Negligence, defined
failure to exercise appropriate care and attention, resulting
an injury, damage or loss to a person or property.
General rule: A client is bound by the negligence of his/her
lawyer.
Exceptions: When the negligence of counsel is so gross that the
client is deprived of due process. The client is not bound by the
negligence of a lawyer. (Encarnacion vs. People, G.R. No. 189955,
July 23, 2014)
A Lawyer is Liable for his
Negligence
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss
has been caused to his client, the latter has a cause
of action against him for damages. However, for the
lawyer to be held liable, his failure to exercise
reasonable care, skill and diligence must be the
proximate cause of the loss. (7 C.J.S., 980).
Instances of Negligence of Attorneys.
(Pineda)
1. Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to answer a complaint resulting in a
default judgment against his client.
2. Failure to bring suit immediately. When the belated suit was filed, the defendant had
already become insolvent and recovery could no longer be had. The lawyer was
declared liable to the client.
3. Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post office of notice of decision resulting in
the non-perfection of the appellant’s appeal.
4. Failure to file briefs within the reglementary period.
5. Failure to attend to trial without filing a motion for postponement or without
requesting either of his two partners in the law office to take his place and appear for
the defendants.
Instances of Negligence of Attorneys.
6. Failure of counsel to notify clients of the scheduled trial which prevented the latter to
look for another lawyer to represent them while counsel was in the hospital.
7. Failure to appear simply because the client did not go to counsel’s office on the date of
the trial as was agreed upon.
8. Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after receiving the amount for the purpose.
9. Failure to take action to have the adverse decision reconsidered.
10. Failure to notify the court of counsel’s change of address resulting in failure to receive
judicial orders to the prejudice of client.
11. Failure to take necessary precaution to insure the he receives all court notices and
processes promptly.
Instances of Negligence of Attorneys.
12. Failure to present evidence.
13. Failure to file the required position paper which prejudiced client’s cause.
14. Failure to inform the client of the scheduled pre-trial conference.
15. Failure of counsel to notify his client on time of an adverse judgment enable
the latter to appeal.
16. Failure to do anything to protect client’s interest after receiving acceptance
fee.
17. Failure to file Petition for Review.
Lawyer has no authority to waive
Client’s Right to Appeal.
A lawyer has no authority to waive his client’s
right to appeal. His failure to perfect an appeal
within the prescribed period constitutes negligence
and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Reontoy v.
Ibadlit, 285 SCRA 88).
Lawyer should accept only so much
cases he can handle.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to
his cases. This is the reason why a practicing lawyers should
accept only so many cases he can handle. Once he agrees to
handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication
and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his
oath as a lawyer. (Legarda v. CA, GR. No. 94457, March 18,
1991)
PIA MARIE B. GO v. ATTY. GRACE C.
BURI, A.C. No. 12296, December 4, 2018
Held: Records show that sometime in September 2012, complainant secured respondent's services in order to assist her in filing
a petition for the annulment of her marriage, and in connection therewith, paid the latter a total of P188,000.00. However, and
despite respondent's assurances that the case had already been filed before the RTC, complainant later on found out through
the Certification issued by the RTC that no annulment case was ever filed by respondent on her behalf. Such neglect of a legal
matter entrusted to respondent constitutes a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, which reads:

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

Case law exhorts that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and
to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal
matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of
Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, she is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective immediately upon her receipt of this Decision. She is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. She is likewise ORDERED to pay a fine in
the amount of P5,000.00 for failure to comply with the directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar
Discipline.
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.
Client must be kept informed of the
Status of the Case.
The client has the right to be fully informed of the status
of the case particularly on the important movements or
developments therein. The lawyer has the corresponding
duty to notify his client of the important orders or decision
not yet known to the client. In case of adverse decision, the
client must be informed within the period of appeal to
enable him to decide whether or not he will seek an
appellate review of the decision.
Duty of the Client as regards of his
case.
It is a client’s duty to be in touch with his counsel so as
to be constantly posted about the case. The client is
mandated to inquire from its counsel about the status and
progress of the case from time to time and cannot expect
that all it has to do is sit back, relax and wait for the
outcome of the case. (GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc.
vs Principe, 474 SCRA 555)
Angelito Ramiscal vs Atty. Edgar S.
Oro, A.C. No. 10945, February 23,
2016
Facts: Spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Orro to
handle a case in which they were the defendants seeking the declaration of the nullity of title to a parcel of land
situated in the Province of Isabela.
Upon receiving the P10,000.00 acceptance fee from them, the respondent handled the trial of the case until the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided it in their favor. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals
The respondent requested from the complainants an additional amount of P30,000.00 for the preparation and
submission of their appellees’ brief in the CA. The couple obliged and paid him the amount requested.
Later on, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The respondent did not inform the complainant of the
adverse decision of the CA which they only learned about from their neighbors. They endeavored to
communicate with the respondent but their efforts were initially in vain. When they finally reached him, he
asked an additional P7,000.00 from them as his fee in filing a motion for reconsideration in their behalf,
although telling them that such motion would already be belated. Even so, they paid to him the amount sought.
To their dismay, they later discovered that he did not file the motion for reconsideration; hence, the decision
attained finality, eventually resulting in the loss of their property with a probable worth of P3,391,600.00.
Angelito Ramiscal vs Atty. Edgar S.
Oro, A.C. No. 10945, February 23,
2016
Held:
As a member of the Law Profession in the Philippines, the respondent had the foregoing professional and ethical
burdens. But he obviously failed to discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with all
good fidelity to his clients. By voluntarily taking up their cause, he gave his unqualified commitment to advance
and defend their interest therein. Even if he could not thereby guarantee to them the favorable outcome of the
litigation, he reneged on his commitment nonetheless because he did not file the motion for reconsideration in
their behalf despite receiving from them the P7,000.00 he had requested for that purpose. He further neglected
to regularly update them on the status of the case, particularly on the adverse result, thereby leaving them in the
dark on the proceedings that were gradually turning against their interest. Updating the clients could have
prevented their substantial prejudice by enabling them to engage another competent lawyer to handle their case.
As it happened, his neglect in that respect lost for them whatever legal remedies were then available. His various
omissions manifested his utter lack of professionalism towards them.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO guilty of violating Canon 17,
and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for a period for TWO YEARS EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE, with the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in
the future will be dealt with more severely.