Case Digest: Canoy VS. Atty. Ortiz [ A.C. No.

5485, March 16, 2005]

FACTS OF THE CASE:
Atty. Ortizs services were engaged by Canoy, who was illegally dismissed by his former employer.
Canoy filed the complaint against his former employer with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Regional Arbitration Board VI of Bacolod City.
The labor arbiter holding the said case ordered Canoy and the Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines to submit
their respective position papers. Canoy thereafter submitted pertinent documents to Atty.Ortiz for the
preparation of the said position paper. Canoy made several trips to respondents law office to follow-up the
status of the position paper required by the labor arbiter. After many visits Canoy failed to meet Atty. Ortiz, so
he decided to go to NLRC to follow-up the case himself. He found out that the complaint was already dismissed
couple of years ago because of failure to prosecute and that no position papers were submitted.
Thereafter, Canoy filed a complaint with the Bar Confidant accusing Atty. Ortiz of misconduct and
malpractice.
In his defense, Atty. Ortiz said that he already prepared the position paper of Canoy but failed to submit
it until the labor arbiter issued an order to dismiss the case. Atty. Ortiz said that he was not able to comply with
the requirement of the labor arbiter because he was too busy being a newly elected Councilor of Bacolod City
while practicing law at the same time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ortiz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by abandoning the cause of
his client.
HELD:
The IBP, in their investigation, found out that Atty. Ortiz clearly showed that he failed to exercise that
degree of competence and diligence required of him.
He should have filed the position paper on time owing his duty as Canoys counsel. Or he should have
resorted to other means like asking for an extension to comply with the said requirement if his busy schedule
would not allow him to file the pertinent document on time. Lastly, he should have informed his client that he
would not be able to make a timely filing to give his client more time to look for remedies.
**Atty. Ortiz was suspended for 1 month and is warned.

Case Digest: Jayne Yu VS. Renato Bondal [A.C. No. 5534. January 17, 2005]
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Complainant engaged the services of respondent as her counsel in five (5) cases where the former was
the plaintiff. Complainant (Yu) and respondent (Bondal) subsequently had a retainer agreement wherein Yu
must pay 200,000 pesos as Acceptance Fee for five (5) cases; 1,500 pesos per hearing; and 10% thereof if
damages are successfully recovered.
Complainant issued two checks to respondent which amounts to 51, 716.54 pesos in total. Respondent
failed to file complainants complain against Swire Realty Development Corporation; Yus estafa case against
Fresnoza was dismissed, same with complainants case against Teh. Respondent also forced complainant to
settle the other two cases under unfair and unreasonable terms. All of these are because of respondents
negligence.
After learning these, complainant filed her complaint against respondent for gross negligence and
violation of the CPR and demanded the respondent to return all documents to complainant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bondal acted with gross negligence and violated the CPR and should be held
liable?
HELD:
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the dismissal of the complaint and finds no probable
cause to hold respondent liable. Records show that it was the complainant who led to the dismissal of some
cases. This was because she failed to attach the original copies of the subject checks attached to the complaint.
Also, the complainant only presented the subject checks after the 90-day period which resulted to the
presumption that knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit is not present, thus no crime exists.
Moreover, complainant failed to establish the prejudice she allegedly suffered because of respondent and
the guilt of respondent by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof.
** The complaint by YU is DISMISSED, and Atty. Bondal is directed to return ALL documents in
his possession relative to the cases he handled for complainant