SUMMARY: A charge for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law was filed against a lawyer who skipped the preliminary hearing and failed to update his clients about the status of their case.
FACTS: Spouses Montecillo hired Atty. Gatchalian for an ejectment case and received a notice for a preliminary conference. Atty. Gatchalian claimed he did not get the notice and couldn’t attend due to a scheduling conflict. He advised the spouses not to attend the conference, promising to reschedule it with the court when he was available. Following Atty. Gatchalian’s advice, the spouses skipped the preliminary hearing. They later discovered that he had not rescheduled the conference and had actually received the notice. Consequently, the trial court issued an unfavorable decision in the ejectment case. Atty. Gatchalian belittled the matter and told the Spouses not to worry. However, Atty. Gatchalian still failed to inform the spouses of their case’s status moving forward.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gatchalian should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
DECISION: Yes. SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS. The Court finds Atty. Gatchalian GUILTY of violating Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR.
The Court ruled that Atty. Gatchalian failed to exercise the diligence required of lawyers in handling complainants’ case. Every lawyer is duty-bound to serve his clients with utmost diligence and competence, and never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. A lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause and, accordingly is expected to exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs.
Based on the records, Atty. Gatchalian failed to file the necessary motion to postpone the hearing due to a conflict in his schedule, and as a result, complainants lost their opportunity to present their evidence in the ejectment case. As complainants’ counsel, Atty. Gatchalian was expected to exercise due diligence. He should have been more circumspect in preparing and filing the motion, considering the serious consequence of failure to attend the scheduled preliminary conference.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.