NESTOR D. VARGAS et al V ATTY ARIEL T.

ORIñO

In a six-page resolution promulgated on June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court First Division

through the ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo suspended Atty. Ariel
T. Oriño from the practice of law for one year for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in connection therewith, a violation of Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The case stemmed from an administrative case filed by multiple complainants

who were defendants in a civil case for forcible entry and damages with a prayer for
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, lodged before the MCTC.
They hired Atty. Oriño as a substitute lawyer in that case.

The High Court agreed with the finding of both the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) and IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) that Atty.
Oriño failed to serve the complainants with industry and diligence in accordance with
Canon 18 of the CPR. The Court noted that Atty. Oriño failed to attend a hearing and
submit a position paper for the complainants’ ejectment case which resulted to the
complainants’ defeat in the Municipal Circuit Trail Court (MCTC) of Libmanan-Cabusao,
Camarines Sur, as well as failed to file a memorandum for complainants which resulted
in the dismissal of the appeal even though he had already been paid Php20,000 as
acceptance fee, Php1,500 as appearance fee, and live chickens and root crops. “It is
undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship was created when [Atty. Oriño] agreed to
accept the complainants’ case and in consideration thereof, received from
complainant’s payment in cash and in kind.”

The IBP-CBD recommended the suspension of Atty. Oriño from the practice of law for six
months with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely, which the IBP-BOG adopted. The Supreme Court adopted such findings
but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension from the practice of law with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more
severely.

In defending his actions, Atty. Oriño claimed that he decided to withdraw from the
ejectment case because, in his view, the case was unmeritorious. However, he admitted
that he failed to formally withdraw as counsel for complainants allegedly due to his
hectic schedule during the 2010 elections. He also admitted that he failed to file the
position paper and the memorandum of appeal before the MCTC and RTC, respectively.
Consequently, the case was eventually dismissed by the RTC. The High Court
underscored that Atty. Oriño clearly fell short of the circumspection and diligence
required of those privileged to practice law. On Atty. Oriño’s attribution of his
shortcomings as a lawyer to his being a politician, the Court found such reason
“unacceptable, if not a display of insolence and arrogance.
The Court also stressed that it has been held that mere failure of the lawyer to perform
the obligations due to his client is considered per se a violation of the lawyer’s oath.
“Indeed, lawyers are duty bound to attend to their client’s cause with diligence, care
and devotion, whether they accept it for a fee or for free, so much so that a lawyer’s
neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him constitutes inexcusable negligence for
which he must be held administratively liable.”