Legal Ethics

Ma. Libertad Cantiller vs Atty. Humberto Potenciano

Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.

image_printPrint this!

A.C. No. 3195 – 259 Phil. 669 – 180 SCRA 246 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer’s Duties to His Client – Due Diligence

In 1987, the sisters Ma. Libertad Cantiller and Peregrina Cantiller lost an ejectment case. The two were later introduced by a friend to Atty. Humberto Potenciano. Potenciano said he can help the sisters because the judge handling the case was his close friend. Potenciano, with the little time he got, immediately filed a petition to counter the order to vacate issued against the sisters. He asked for P1,000.00 for his fees from the sisters.

But later on, the judge handling the case asked Potenciano to inhibit because of the fact that they are friends. Potenciano then asked an additional P2,000.00 from the sisters. He said he needs to find another judge who can rule in their favor. He also asked another P10,000.00 from the sisters. He said this amount is needed in order for them to re-acquire their apartment. On top of the P10k, he also asked for another P1k for additional expenses. The sisters were able to pool resources from friends just to raise the amount asked for by Potenciano.

It turned out however that the court never asked P10k from the parties nor was the additional P1k asked by the court. Worse, said amount (P11k) was never deposited in court. The sisters demanded Potenciano to return the said amount but he failed to do so hence they filed an administrative case against him. In his defense, Potenciano claimed that the sister were merely harassing him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Potenciano should be subjected to disciplinary actions.

HELD: Yes. From the records, it appears that Potenciano haphazardly prepared the pleadings he wrote for the sisters. In fact, the cases he filed for the sisters were all dismissed for lack of cause of action. Worse, he got P11k from the sisters but never used the same for the case instead he pocketed it for himself. When he contracted the sisters, Potenciano, as a lawyer, bound himself to undertake his legal services with maximum effort until the conclusion of the case. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him.

It is also of no moment that Potenciano had little time to prepare for the pleading. When he accepted the case, his clients reposed full faith in him. But he never complemented the trust and faith reposed in him. He even bragged his closeness with the judge and even intimated the need to “buy” another judge. Such actions are reprehensible.

Potenciano was suspended indefinitely until he can show to the court that he is fit to practice law.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply