8/12/2019 Lorenzana Food Corp vs Daria Case Digest

1/3

Facts:Atty. Daria was hired by Lorenzana FoodCorporation as its legal counsel and was eventuallydesignated as its personal manager. In the course of his

employment with the corp he was involved in two laborcases:

Hanopol case - A certain Veronica Hanopol who wasallegedly illegally dismissed, filed a case against him.During the initialhearing, Daria and Hanopol agreed to anamicable settlement and set a date for the next meeting.

This was reset after Hanopol did not show up and theLabor Arbiter reset the date further to June 20, 1983. Onthat date, Daria was in another hearing and he moved topostpone the Hanopol hearingthrough a phonemessage but the Labor Arbiter did not receive it, hence heconsiders the case as submitted for decision based onHanopols complaint andaffidavit.

Daria appealed to the NLRC and the case was remandedto the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. Attempts tohave an amicable settlement proved futile. By the time thefinal hearing was set, Daria had already resigned from thecompany and no one appeared for the corp during theHanopol hearing. Labor arbiter revived his earlier decisionawarding Hanopol with sum of P6,469.80 in labor benefits.

New counsel for the corp appealed to the judgment andthis was remanded for further proceedings.

San Juan case - Roberto San Juan is an employee of thecorp who was accused of double liquidation andunliquidated cash advances. He was asked to submit a

8/12/2019 Lorenzana Food Corp vs Daria Case Digest

2/3

written explanation and was placed on preventivesuspension. He was required to restitute said amount tothe company but upon failure to do so, a complaint of

estafa was filed against him. San Juan resigned andsought the assistance of Daria in preparing hiscounteraffidavit.

Because of these incidents, LFC files an administrativecharge against Daria for negligence and betrayal of formerclients confidences.

Issue: Do the acts of Atty. Daria constitute negligence andbetrayal of his former clients confidence?

Held: Court says Yes, Daria violated Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and betrayed the confidences of his formerclient. He is suspended from the practice of law for 6months.

Canon 18 provides that a lawyer shall serve his client withcompetence and diligence; Rule 18.03 provides that alawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to himand his negligence in connection therewith shall renderhim liable.

Because Daria had a responsibility to attend the twoscheduled hearings he missed and had he filed the

required position paper for the corporation then at leastthere would have been no delay in the resolution of thecase which the court states could have been in favor ofthe corporation. The delay was prejudicial to LFC becauseit deprived successor counsel of the time which he should

8/12/2019 Lorenzana Food Corp vs Daria Case Digest

3/3

be devoting to other cases of LFC instead of the work leftby Daria. The respondents claim that he was able topersuade NLRC on appeal to set aside the first decision is

no matter. Negligence is apparent in the conduct of Daria.As for preparing the counter-affidavit of San Juan, thecourt is not convinced with his denial of his participation inthe preparation. His signature was placed on thedocument and it is clear that the contention of Daria is amere afterthought.

An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the casein which he has represented him but also for the relation ofattorney and client has terminated. It is not good practiceto permit him afterwards to defend in another case otherpersons against his former client under the pretext that thecase is distinct and independent of the former case.