Scribd
Upload
230 views2 pages

Cas Vs Atty. Librada

Atty. Richard Librada was suspended from practice for two years for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in his handling of a case for Werr Corporation International (WCI). [1] He failed to appear at a pre-trial conference, causing the case to be dismissed. [2] He filed defective motions that were denied. [3] He willfully withheld an adverse court decision from WCI, preventing them from taking further action.

Uploaded by

AnsaiMendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
230 views2 pages

Cas Vs Atty. Librada

Atty. Richard Librada was suspended from practice for two years for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in his handling of a case for Werr Corporation International (WCI). [1] He failed to appear at a pre-trial conference, causing the case to be dismissed. [2] He filed defective motions that were denied. [3] He willfully withheld an adverse court decision from WCI, preventing them from taking further action.

Uploaded by

AnsaiMendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ROGER C. CAS VS. ATTY. RICHARD LIBRADA; A.C. NO.

11956; 6 AUGUST 2019 (CANONS 17 AND


18, RULE 18.04)

PER CURIAM, J.

FACTS:

Werr Corporation International (WCI), through its President Roger C. Cas, engaged the services
of respondent Atty. Richard Librada to prosecute before the RTC in Quezon City the complaint for
collection for the unpaid billings filed by WCI against AMA Computer College for the construction
agreement they had entered into. However, despite the notices sent to Atty. Librada, he failed to appear
during the pre-trial conference. Hence, the RTC dismissed the complaint. The motion for reconsideration
filed by him was denied because of his failure to attach an affidavit of service, and because of his request
of having the hearing of the motion on a Saturday instead of on a Friday.

Atty. Librada then filed an omnibus motion, but the RTC denied the motion for being a prohibited
pleading and for having been filed out of time. On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition by affirming the
procedural lapses committed by the lawyer in the RTC, specifically: (1) failure of Atty. Librada to appear
on the scheduled pre-trial conference; (2) failure to incorporate the affidavit of service in the motion for
reconsideration; (3) setting the hearing of the omnibus motion on a Saturday; and (4) belated filing of the
omnibus motion. The dismissal of the petition became final, and the entry of judgment was received by
WCI.

Aggrieved by the outcome of its case, WCI filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Librada
in the CBD-IBP, which recommended his suspension from the practice of law for two years for having
violated Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the CPR.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Librada violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in handling the case
of Werr Corporation International

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Librada violated the CPR when he negligently performed his duties as counsel for WCI.

Once the lawyer-client relationship commences, the lawyer becomes bound to serve his client
with full competence, and committed to attend to its cause with utmost diligence, care and devotion. To
accord with the highly fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer must always be mindful
of the client's cause and must be diligent in handling the client's legal affairs. Thus, Canon 17, Canon 18
and Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility command:

CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
xxxx

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.

The foregoing lay down the standards for the lawyer's conduct and actuations in respect of the
client's cause. Yet, the pleadings and motions filed by Atty. Librada betrayed his gross neglect as an
attorney and demonstrated the lackluster discharge of his ethical obligations towards the client.
Under his Lawyer's Oath, Atty. Librada expressly vowed to conscientiously safeguard the cause
of WCI once he accepted his engagement. From that moment on, WCI fully expected him to diligently
advance and protect its interest in each phase of the proceedings before the trial court and he had to
meet the expectation. But the records reveal how Atty. Librada had been inexcusably remiss in
discharging his duty of diligence towards WCI.

Firstly, Firstly, the dismissal of WCI's complaint was attributable solely to Atty. Librada's
inexplicable absence from the pre-trial conference despite due notice to him. Secondly, the filing of the
defective motion for reconsideration and the belated filing of the omnibus motion underscored Atty.
Librada's negligence. That the trial court would not act upon any written motion unless the movant set if
for hearing and duly notified the opposing party thereof were basic procedural rules familiar to all lawyers.
At the very least, Atty. Librada was expected to know the rudiments of law and legal procedure. Thirdly,
the IBP found that Atty. Librada had willfully withheld the CA's adverse decision from WCI. Such
concealment prevented WCI to take the necessary actions or to lessen its injury. The respondent's
actuations compounded his unprofessionalism. He thereby violated the need for the relationship between
a counsel and his client to be founded on confidence and candor, under which the former must
adequately and constantly inform the latter of the developments of the case and should not leave it in the
dark as to the mode and manner in which its interests are being prosecuted or defended.

Wherefore, the Court finds Aty. Librada guilty of violating Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
years.

You might also like