Lawyer Reprimanded for Losing Client Trust: Fidelity Lessons from Curimatmat v. Gojar

The Supreme Court's 1999 resolution in Curimatmat v. Gojar (A.C. No. 4411) reminds every lawyer that competence alone is not enough—clients must be kept informed and their cases pursued with genuine fidelity. The case arose from a client's complaint against Atty. Felipe Gojar, who allegedly failed to appeal adverse decisions on time, misrepresented case statuses, and moved to dismiss a petition without client consent. The Court found the lawyer remiss but stopped short of suspension, issuing a reprimand instead.

The Complaints Against Atty. Gojar

The complainants were former employees of Uniwide Sales, Inc., who had engaged Atty. Gojar to handle several labor cases. Their letter-complaint listed four grievances:

1. Withdrawal of a Supreme Court petition – Atty. Gojar filed a "Manifestation and Motion" to dismiss their petition before the Supreme Court without their consent or authority.
2. Late appeal in an unfair labor practice case – The lawyer received an adverse decision on July 14, 1994, but filed the appeal on August 8, 1994—beyond the ten-day reglementary period. Worse, he allegedly stated in the appeal that he received the decision on July 29, 1994, which was false.
3. Failure to file a petition for review – In another money claims case, Atty. Gojar promised to prepare a petition for review with the Supreme Court but never did, offering excuses about workload and health.
4. Concealment of an adverse decision – In a fourth case, the lawyer allegedly hid that a decision had been rendered on September 30, 1994, and failed to file an appeal.

The Lawyer's Defense

Atty. Gojar denied the allegations. He claimed the withdrawal of the petition was done after consultation and with client conformity. He insisted he never misrepresented case statuses. On the late appeal, he argued that another union officer, not he, had filed it. And on the concealed decision, he claimed the clients already knew about it and had told him they secured another lawyer.

Notably, Atty. Gojar never appeared at any of the six scheduled hearings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), despite due notice. The complainants presented their evidence ex parte, and the IBP's Board of Governors recommended a six-month suspension.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court cited Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to serve the client with competence and diligence. It also referenced Gamalinda v. Alcantara (206 SCRA 468 [1992]), which holds that a lawyer owes fidelity to the client's cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

The Court found Atty. Gojar's defenses unsubstantiated. His claim that he consulted the clients before withdrawing the petition was self-serving, especially since he chose to ignore the hearings where he could have clarified matters. His failure to appeal on time and his concealment of the adverse decision fell short of the required fidelity.

However, the Court did not believe suspension was warranted. Considering this was his first offense, a reprimand was imposed, with a warning that any repetition would be dealt with more severely.

A Reminder to Litigants

The Court took the opportunity to remind litigants that lawyers are not "demi-gods or magicians" who can always win cases. While lawyers must serve with competence and diligence, they are not expected to be victorious in every case. Every litigation has a winner and a loser—unless the parties settle.

Practical Takeaways

• Lawyers must keep clients informed. Concealing an adverse decision or misrepresenting a case's status violates Canon 18 and erodes the trust that is fundamental to the attorney-client relationship.
• Deadlines are sacred. Filing an appeal beyond the reglementary period—or worse, misstating the date of receipt—is a serious breach of professional duty.
• Withdrawing a case requires client consent. A lawyer cannot move to dismiss a petition without the client's authority, even if the lawyer believes the case lacks merit.
• Non-appearance at disciplinary hearings is costly. A lawyer who ignores IBP hearings loses the chance to explain his side, allowing the complainant's evidence to stand unrebutted.
• First offenses may merit leniency. The Court distinguished between a reprimand and a suspension, considering the lawyer's clean record—but warned that repeat offenses would be punished more severely.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.