Section 3. Diligence and punctuality.

— A lawyer shall diligently and seasonably act on any

A lawyer shall be punctual in all appearances, submissions of pleadings and documents

This provision is based on Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 which provides that a lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable, and Rule 11.02 of Canon 11 which states that a lawyer shall
punctually appear at court hearings.

What is required of a lawyer is ordinary diligence. Failing to observe the same, he may
be liable for negligence. As a practical application, a lawyer shall accept only so many
cases he can handle. Additionally, it is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client, but
also to the courts and the public to be punctual in attendance and to be concise and di-
rect in the trial and disposition of cases. Lack of punctuality interferes in the speedy ad-
ministration of justice. A lawyer may be held in contempt of court for coming in late in
the hearing or trial of the case or for failing to appear in a trial.

Jurisprudence:

Fidela Vda. De Enriquez v. Atty. Manuel San Jose

A lawyer is suspended from the practice of law for six months and ordered to return a sum of
money to his client after being found guilty of negligence and failure to file the appropriate civil
case, resulting in the prescription of the client's action for unlawful detainer.

Facts: Fidela Vda. De Enriquez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Manuel G. San Jose for gross negligence. Complainant hired Atty. San Jose in
1989 to file an unlawful detainer case against a tenant who defaulted on rental pay-
ments. Despite payment of attorney's fees, Atty. San Jose failed to file the appropriate
civil case. Complainant decided to withdraw the case and demanded the return of the
documents, but Atty. San Jose refused and failed to return them. As a result, the action
for unlawful detainer prescribed. Complainant also alleged that her daughter, who
worked for Atty. San Jose, was not paid her salary.
Issue: Whether Atty. San Jose should be disbarred or suspended from the practice of
law for gross negligence.
Ruling: Atty. San Jose was found guilty of negligence and violation of Canon 18, specifi -
cally Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court held that a lawyer
has the responsibility to protect the interests of their clients with utmost diligence and
competence. Atty. San Jose failed to file the appropriate civil case after sending a de-
mand letter, which constituted inexcusable negligence. His refusal to return the case
documents and his blaming of the courts for the delay were deemed reprehensible.
Atty. San Jose's failure to file the case resulted in the prescription of the action for un-
lawful detainer, causing damage and prejudice to the client's cause.
Ratio: A lawyer has the duty to serve their client with competence and diligence, and to
exert their best efforts to protect the client's interests within the bounds of the law. It is
not enough for a lawyer to be qualified; they must also adequately prepare and give
appropriate attention to their legal work. Atty. San Jose fell short of the required dili-
gence and neglected his duty as a lawyer. The recommended penalty of one-month
suspension was deemed too light, considering the gravity of the offense and the need
to preserve the integrity of the legal profession. Therefore, the court imposed a six-
month suspension from the practice of law on Atty. San Jose and required him to return
the sum of money received from the client.

Eduardo Maglente vs. Atty. Defin Agcaoili, Jr.

A lawyer is found guilty of neglecting his client's legal matter and failing to return the
money received, resulting in a one-year suspension from the practice of law and an or-
der to return the funds.

Facts: Administrative complaint filed by Eduardo A. Maglente against Atty. Delfin R. Ag-
caoili, Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Maglente engaged the ser -
vices of Agcaoili to file a case to determine the true owner of a piece of land. Maglente
gave Agcaoili P48,000.00 as payment for the filing fees. Agcaoili failed to file the case
and claimed that the money was not enough to cover the fees. Maglente demanded the
return of the money, but Agcaoili refused and even asked for more money. Maglente
filed an administrative complaint seeking the return of the full amount he paid to Ag-
caoili.
Issue: Whether or not Agcaoili should be held administratively liable for his actions.
Ruling: Agcaoili is guilty of violating Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03, and Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Agcaoili neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by
Maglente and failed to account for or return the money received from his client.
Lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence, and they
must hold in trust any money or property received from their clients. Agcaoili's failure to
fulfill these duties constituted inexcusable negligence and a violation of the trust re-
posed in him. Penalty imposed: suspension from the practice of law for one year. Con -
sistent with previous cases where lawyers neglected their clients' affairs and failed to
return their money or property. Agcaoili ordered to return the amount of P48,000.00 to
Maglente within 90 days from the finality of the decision. Failure to comply with this di -
rective would result in a more severe penalty.
Ratio: Lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence. They
must not neglect any legal matter entrusted to them and should account for all money
or property received from their clients. Failure to fulfill these duties constitutes a viola-
tion of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Agcaoili neglected the case entrusted to
him by Maglente and failed to account for or return the money received. Found guilty
and suspended from the practice of law for one year. Ordered to return the money to
Maglente.
 Napoleon Quitazol vs. Atty. Henry Capela
Case: A.C. No. 12072 [Resolution]; Ponente: Lopez, J; Decision Date: Dec 9, 2020

Atty. Capela is suspended from the practice of law for six months and fined for neglect-
ing his duty as counsel to Napoleon, resulting in the latter's forced compromise agree-
ment and dissatisfaction.

Facts: Napoleon S. Quitazol engaged the services of Atty. Henry S. Capela in a civil case
for breach of contract and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Alaminos
City, Pangasinan. Atty. Capela entered his appearance and filed an answer before the
RTC. However, Atty. Capela failed to attend several scheduled hearings, leaving
Napoleon without legal representation. As a result, Napoleon was forced to enter into a
compromise agreement. Feeling shortchanged, Napoleon demanded the return of his
motor vehicle and a sum of money from Atty. Capela, but the latter refused. Napoleon
filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD) against Atty. Capela for neglect of duty. The IBP-CBD required
Atty. Capela to submit an answer, but he failed to do so. At the mandatory conference,
only Napoleon appeared, and Atty. Capela was declared in default. The Investigating
Commissioner found Atty. Capela administratively liable for neglect of duty and recom-
mended a six-month suspension and the return of the motor vehicle. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the findings but modified the recommended penalty
to three years of suspension. Atty. Capela filed a motion for reconsideration, denying
that he served as counsel to Napoleon and claiming that he did not receive a signed
copy of the retainer agreement. He also argued that the complaint should be dismissed
because Napoleon's substitute issued an affidavit withdrawing the case. The IBP Board
of Governors denied Atty. Capela's motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Whether Atty. Capela's failure to attend hearings constitutes negligence.
Ruling: Atty. Henry S. Capela is found administratively liable for violation of Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found Atty. Capela ad -
ministratively liable for neglect of duty. The Court adopted the conclusion and findings
of the IBP but modified the penalty imposed. Atty. Capela was suspended from the
practice of law for six months and was ordered to pay a fine of P5,000 for his repeated
refusal to obey the orders of the IBP.
Ratio: Atty. Capela's failure to attend hearings constitutes negligence. A lawyer's neglect
of a legal matter entrusted to him is inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
administratively liable. Atty. Capela's failure to attend the scheduled hearings despite
notice constitutes inexcusable negligence. As Napoleon's counsel of record, Atty. Capela
is responsible for the conduct of the case in all its stages. His duty of competence and
diligence includes attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings,
and prosecuting the case with reasonable dispatch.