4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.02 — A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client's request for information. Here, complainant requested for an update on the case twice, first in March, and second in May 2010. But instead of being truthful to complainant, respondent lied through his teeth, claiming that the case was still pending resolution even though he was already aware that it already got dismissed as early as February 25, 2010. When complainant eventually uncovered the truth, he confronted respondent who simply shrugged it off saying there was nothing more he could do. When a client requests for a follow-up on his case, the update from the lawyer must not only be prompt, but also full and effective. The lawyer must not merely brush aside the client's request without even perusing the case records. For the client is entitled to a full-disclosure on the material developments on his case.[12] To be clear, a lawyer need not wait for their clients to ask for information but must advise them without delay about matters essential for them to avail of legal remedies.[13] When respondent repeatedly failed to apprise complainant of the decree of denial of the latter's petition, respondent is deemed to have failed to fulfill his duties under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR. In Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo,[14] Atty. Margallo erroneously assumed that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested to pursue the appeal, causing complainant to lose any chance to have the case reviewed by a higher court. Atty. Margallo failed to exhaust all possible means to protect Ramirez's interest, contrary to what she had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. She was, therefore, held liable for violating Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR. Similarly, in Cabauatan v. Venida,[15] respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida was suspended from the practice of law as he had been remiss in handling his client's case. Complainant made several follow-ups with respondent but the latter ignored her and made her believe that he was diligently handling her case. Complainant was surprised when she received notice from the Court of Appeals informing her that her appeal had been abandoned and her case, dismissed. For his failure to file an appeal, the dismissal lapsed into finality. The Court held that Atty. Freddie A. Venida violated Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR. Lastly, in Caranza Vda. de Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr.,[16] Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. neglected to inform his client about the Comi of Appeals' ruling which he had duly https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66208 5/10