WACKWACK GOLF v CA Facts: Arcangel, a former employee of Wack Wack (WW), filed with the CFI a money claim

case for overtime services rendered to WW, for unenjoyed vacation, moral damages, and atty.s fees. At the hearing of the case, neither WW nor its counsel, Balcoff et. al., appeared, despite notification. As a result, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of Arcangel. The firm of Chuidian, on behalf of WW, filed a petition to set aside the judgment on the ground of mistake, misunderstanding, and excusable neglect. According to the firm of Chuidian, WW was first represented by Balcoff et. al. Thereafter, WW decided to replace Balcoff et. al. with the Chuidian Law Office. When the representative of Chuidian went to the firm of Balcoff to inform the latter of the replacement, Mr. Balcoff was not in the office. Atty. Cruz of Balcoff et. al. declared that he had no authority to turn over the records of the case to Chuidian Law Office. As a result, Atty. Chuidian called Atty. Balcoff. Atty. Chuidian said that, inasmuch as Balcoff et. al. was still representing the WW, the Chuidian Law Office will send a representative on the hearing day. However, no representative from the Chuidian Law Office came. (This is the misunderstanding that was mentioned above. Balcoff thought that Chuidian will be the one to appear instead of him. Issue: W/N the judgment in favor of Arcangel should be set aside based on misunderstanding. Held: The judgment should not be set aside. Misunderstanding alibi not accepted. The law firm of Balcoff and Cruz was still WWs counsel of record, because the firm of Chuidian only entered appearance after the date of the hearing mentioned above. As such counsel of record, Balcoff et. al. must have known that it is under obligation to protect WWs interest until its final release from the professional relationship. The lack of coordination and understanding between the two law firms cannot be considered a legal excuse within the ambit of excusable negligence.

GARCIA V. BALA [A.C. No. 5039(2005)] Ponente: J. Panganiban Facts: 1. 4/8/99 Spouses Garcia filed a Letter-Complaint against Atty. Bala, alleging he (1) failed to render a legal service contracted - preparation of a petition for review that he was to file w/ the CA for Department of Agrarian Relations Adjudication Board (DARAB) case (2) refused to return the P9200 legal fees they paid him and (3) hurled invectives at them when they asked him for a copy of the petition that he claimed to have filed. 2. Atty. didn't give Comment when SC required him so he was presumed to have waived his right to be heard. 3. IBP investigation, report, and recommendation:

He erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal w/ the DARAB instead of a verified petition for review resulting in the lapse of the prescribed period for filing the petition to the prejudice of his clients. (1) He might not have been in bad faith in filing a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review but his failure to use the proper legal remedy constituted lack of professional competency warrants sanction (2) His unjustified refusal and failure to return the money paid by his clients warrants sanction and return of P9200 (3) Uttering unsavory words against complainants during one instance when they had called on him to ask for a copy of the supposed appeal P5K fine + 6 mos. suspension 4. IBP Board of Governors modified IBP investigator's recommendation - reprimand and suspend for 6mos + return P9.2K w/in 30 days. Issues/Held/Ratio: 1. Negligence for Wrong Remedy - Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to the cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. -He failed to champion the cause of his clients with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Despite adequate time, he did not familiarize himself with the correct procedural remedy as regards their case. Worse, he repeatedly assured them that the supposed petition had already been filed. (Violated 18.02 and 18.03) 2. Conduct Unbecoming (1) Having become aware of the wrong remedy he had erroneously taken, he purposely evaded complainants, refused to update them on the appeal, and misled them as to his whereabouts. (Violated 18.04 for denying them their rights to be updated on the developments and status of the case for which they had engaged his services.) (2) Uttered invectives at them when they visited him for an update on the case. - Lawyers may be disciplined - whether in their professional or in their private capacity - for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor (Violation of Canon 7) (3) His nonparticipation in the present proceedings (+ he never acknowledged nor offer any excuse for his noncompliance) manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities. 3. The Need to Reimburse the Money Paid Quantum meruit (meaning "as much as he deserves" is used as basis for determining a lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract) applies. The legal services he actually rendered were too insignificant for remuneration because of the uselessness of the remedy he took. Disposition: Guilty of negligence and conduct unbecoming a lawyer; 6mos. suspension, to return P9.2K + Warning. Inform Client on Status of Case Rule 18.04