FELICIDAD TOLENTINO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIA C. MANGAPIT, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Victoria
C. Mangapit, a member of the Philippine Bar for
unethical practice and flagrant violation of her oath as a lawyer.

The records of the case show that Atty. Victoria C. Mangapit’s services were engaged by complainant for the
purpose of reopening Civil Case No. 2654 in order to present NBI agent Segundo Tabayoyong to testify in the genuineness of signatures
appearing in some questioned documents inasmuch as complainant’s lawyers Attys.
Eligir and Bautista were not available; that it was
their agreement that complainant and her other lawyers would take care of the
case after said witness had been presented and the case submitted again for
decision; that by virtue of said agreement, respondent filed the case; that
respondent later presented said NBI agent; that for the purpose of preparing
the supplemental memorandum with respect to the testimony of the NBI agent,
respondent filed a manifestation with the trial court praying for a remarking
of exhibits; that respondent then filed a motion requesting for a resolution on
said manifestation which the trial court granted; that respondent then filed
her supplemental memorandum after which the case was deemed submitted for
decision; that later, respondent was furnished with a copy of the decision,
which, at first, she refused to accept alleging that she was no longer the
lawyer of the complainant in the case but accepted just the same relying upon
the assurance of the process server that the other lawyers of complainant would
receive their own copies; that respondent failed to inform the complainant or
her other counsels of the adverse decision and as a result of which,
complainant lost her right to appeal within the reglementary
period.

Respondent alleged that she was no longer duty bound to inform
complainant nor her other lawyers of the adverse decision on the ground that
she was only hired to make a special appearance and that their relationship per
their agreement had ceased.

The contention of respondent is untenable.

There is nothing in the records to show that respondent ever
informed the court that her appearance is for a limited purpose only.  The order issued by the trial court in
dismissing the appeal of complainant reads:

“From the records of the case, it appears that there were
three lawyers who actually prosecuted the case for the plaintiff.  Atty. Jose Eligir
was the one who filed the complaint on May
15, 1974 and then later Atty. Edgardo Bau­tista
filed several pleadings and appeared in some stages of the proceedings.  On April 29, 1978, Atty. Bautista filed a
motion with this Court alleging therein that he is on vacation for a certain
length of time because of a personal problem which needed his attention and
that in view of this circumstance, he prayed that the plaintiff be given the
privilege to look for another lawyer to handle and represent her in this
case.  It was after this that Atty.
Victoria Mangapit filed a motion on April 29, 1978
praying that the Order of this Court submitting the case for decision be
reconsi­dered or set aside and that a hearing be set for the reception of
additional evidence for the plaintiff particularly that of the testi­mony of
Mr. Segundo Tabayoyong of the NBI regarding his
findings on some questioned documents. 
Despite the opposition of the defendants, the motion was granted aid the
hearing held on May 30, 1978
whereat the plaintiff was represented by Atty. Victoria Mangapit.  The Court on the same date issued an order
grant­ing the prayer of both counsel that they be given ten days from receipt
of a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes to submit simultaneously
their supplemental memorandum after which the case is deemed submitted for
decision.  Thereafter, on June 20, 1978
and July 6, 1978, Atty. Victoria Mangapit filed two
separate pleadings, the first being a manifestation praying for a remarking of
exhi­bits for the plaintiff and then a motion requesting for a resolution of
her manifestation which the Court granted on July 7, 1978.  On July
17, 1978, Atty. Victoria Mangapit filed
her supplemental memorandum and on July
25, 1978, counsel for the defendants, likewise, filed his
supplemental memorandum.”^[1]

The attorney-client relationship commences from the time the
lawyer is retained by the client and continues until the lawyer’s authority to
represent the interest of the client is sooner revoked or withdrawn by the
client.  The records do not show that
respondent’s authority was ever withdrawn by her client nor did she withdraw
such authority before the trial court. 
As such, respondent continued as counsel of record until the record
reflected her discharge as such.

Also, the authority of a lawyer cannot be limited by any private
agreement between complainant and respondent. 
Any private agreement between them is limited only with respect to
themselves and cannot affect the records of the court.

As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to
inform her client of whatever information she may have acquired which it is
important that the client should have knowledge of.  She should notify her client of any adverse
decision to enable her client to decide whether to seek an appellate review
thereof.  Keeping the client informed of
the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding ands lost of trust
and confidence in the attorney.^[2]

An attorney should also take such precaution as to safeguard the
interest of her client.  In the event of
neglect of duty on the part of government employees, it is her duty to act.^[3]
Thus, when respondent was furnished with the notice of the adverse decision she
should have taken steps to find out that the process server actually sent
copies of the decision to the other counsel of record of complainant.  She should have not simply relied on the
assurance of the process server that copies of the decision would be sent to the
other lawyers of complainant.

While the records of the case show that there is merit in the
complaint of complainant, this Court, however, should not disregard its
findings after examining the records and the report of the Solicitor General
that respondent’s errors and omissions may be traced to her inexperience – the
said case and decision being the first she handled and received after passing
the bar; that respondent acted under an honest mistake in the exercise of her
duty as a lawyer.^[4]
This Court agrees with the findings of the Solicitor General that:

“There was therefore no malice, bad motive, deceit or
deliberate intent on the part of respondent when she failed to give notice of
the adverse decision to complain­ant.”^[5]

Considering the same and the fact that the error was the first
committed by respondent, this Court resolves to admonish respondent.  We cannot accept the Solicitor General’s
recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for at
least one month, the same being too harsh and severe to be imposed on
respondent.^[6]

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent is hereby
ADMONISHED with a WARNING that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt
with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 5.

^[2]
O. Parel vs. Abaria,
AC 959, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 128.

^[3]
Pagtanac vs. CA, G.R. No. L-26922, March 21,
1968, 22 SCRA 1227.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 58-59.

^[5]
Id., p. 59.

^[6]
Id.