ADM. CASE NO.
5691 : March 13, 2009 AVITO YU, Complainant, v. ATTY. CESAR R.
TAJANLANGIT, Respondent.
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he had engaged the services of respondent as defense counsel in Criminal Case No. 96-150393
that resulted in a judgment of conviction against him. After the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was denied by
the trial court, instead of filing an appeal, respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure imputing grave abuse of discretion on the trial court's part in denying the motion. This petition was
subsequently denied by the Court of Appeals. Due to respondent's alleged error in the choice of remedy, the period to
appeal lapsed and complainant was made to suffer imprisonment resulting from his conviction. In depriving complainant
of his right to an appeal, respondent allegedly violated Rule 18.03 of the Code. Moreover, complainant averred that
respondent had violated Rule 16.01 of the Code for failing to return the bailbond to him in the amount P195,000.00. For
his part, respondent clarified that his legal services were engaged only after the denial of the motion for reconsideration
and/or new trial and the supplement thereto. His legal services were limited to filing the petition for certiorari.
Complainant, at the time, had already been convicted by the trial court. Respondent also explained that he had discussed
with complainant the merits of filing a petition for certiorari and that complainant gave his conformity to the filing of the
same.
Issue/s: Whether or not Atty. Cesar Tajanlangit should be disbarred for violations of Rule 18.03 and Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling: Considering that Respondent was only hired after the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial,
Complainant is silent whether an appeal was still available to him at that time. Complainant failed to state the material
dates when his first lawyer, Atty. Lacsamana received the Decision dated 6 February 1998, when she filed the Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial, and when his second lawyer, Atty. Espiritu, received the Order dated 23 April 1999. At
any rate, Respondent exhaustively explained his legal basis for elevating the Order dated 23 April 1999 to the Court of
Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari.Considering that the Order dated 23 April 1999, which denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial, Respondent's argument that the said order is not the proper subject of appeal is tenable.
This is supported by Section 1(a), Rule 43 and Section 9, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. For another, a perusal of grounds
Respondent raised in the Petition is acceptable grounds that warrant a new trial. At least two of the grounds Respondent
raised were: the negligence of former counsel in failing to present evidence and new discovered evidence. It is well-settled
that these grounds usually warrant the re-opening of evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that Respondent acted negligently in
advocating Complainant's cause. CI In the absence of evidence controverting Respondent's claim that a verbal agreement
exists or an amount different from what was agreed upon, it is believable that indeed, Complainant knew of the fee
arrangement entered into with the Respondent, through Ms. Javier, who acted in his behalf. While Respondent is entitled
to be paid for the legal services he rendered and expenses he incurred, it is still Respondent's obligation to render an
accounting of the money received. Records show that respondent did not serve as complainant's lawyer at the inception of
or during the trial of Criminal Case No. 96-150393 which resulted to the conviction of the latter. In fact, respondent was
only engaged as counsel after the withdrawal of appearance of complainant's lawyers and denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial and the supplement thereto. At that time, complainant had already been incarcerated.
Significantly, complainant made no mention of the availability of the remedy of appeal at the time of respondent's
employment. More importantly, the Court finds adequate respondent's justification for filing the petition for certiorari
instead of an appeal. Indeed, there is no showing that respondent was negligent in handling the legal matter entrusted to
him by complainant. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Cesar R. Tajanlangit is ordered to render,
within thirty (30) days from notice of this Resolution, an accounting of all monies he received from complainant and to
itemize the nature of the legal services he had rendered, inclusive of the expenses he had incurred, in compliance with
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is further ADMONISHED.
