Facts:

On July 20, 2000, Marcial L. Abiero filed an administrative complaint against Attorney Bernardo G. Juanino for alleged negligence concerning a legal matter that Abiero entrusted to him. Abiero engaged Juanino's services through the law firm P.C. Nolasco and Associates for his case in National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-00904-95. Initially, Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio ruled in favor of Abiero on January 29, 1998, ordering the respondents to pay him unpaid wages, vacation leave pay, and damages. However, the NLRC later reversed this decision, dismissing the case for lack of merit. Abiero repeatedly attempted to check the status of the case, either personally or through agents, but Juanino would continually advise him to call back later for updates.

Juanino filed a motion for extension of time to file a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals and paid the corresponding docket fee; however, when Abiero verified this with the Court of Appe

...

Facts:

Background and Client Engagement

• Complainant Marcial L. Abiero engaged respondent Atty. Bernardo G. Juanino, a member of the law firm P.C. Nolasco and Associates, to serve as counsel de parte in NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-00904-95.
• The legal matter involved claims for unpaid wages, unpaid vacation leave pay, plane fare refund, moral damages, and attorney's fees resulting from a Labor Arbiter’s ruling on January 29, 1998, in favor of the complainant.
• Subsequent appeals led to the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s decision by the National Labor Relations Commission, which ultimately rendered the decision final and executory.

Filing of Administrative Complaint and Alleged Negligence

• On July 20, 2000, an administrative complaint was filed by Abiero charging respondent with negligence in handling the legal matter.
• Complainant’s repeated inquiries about the status of his case were met with delays and promises by the respondent, who advised him to follow-up at a later date.
• Despite having filed several motions for extension and paying the docket fee for the appellate review, respondent failed to file the required Petition for Review, causing the NLRC decision to lapse into finality.

Timeline of Respondent’s Extensions and Compliance Issues

• Respondent was initially required to file his comment by August 30, 2000, but he repeatedly sought additional time, with his first request for an extension made on September 25, 2000.
• A series of motions for further extension were subsequently filed, including a final acknowledgment on February 28, 2001, that no further extension would be granted.
• Despite receiving 11 extensions, respondent failed to timely file his comment.
• On July 29, 2002, respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be subject to disciplinary action or held in contempt for non-compliance.
• Respondent eventually filed his comment on September 17, 2002, together with a Motion to Admit Comment Filed One Day Late, after a Compliance Motion for a final 12-day extension had been submitted on September 2, 2002.
• The Motion to Admit Comment filed one day late was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation in a Resolution dated October 21, 2002.

Respondent’s Defense and Allegations

• Respondent claimed that complainant’s engagement came as a result of handling several related cases for complainant’s uncle, including:
• Criminal Case No. F-10088,
• POEA Case No. M-91-06-602,
• I.S. No. 93 E-17909, and
• POEA Case No. L-93-04-610.
• He asserted that his successful handling of these cases led to dismissals and recoveries of monetary awards, thereby establishing his competence and justifying his later actions.
• Respondent contended that, regarding NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-00904-95:
• The case was referred by Aniceto Encio (complainant’s uncle).
• There was an understanding that no acceptance fee would be charged, and instead, he would receive 30% of any recovery.
• After reimbursing docket fees, he communicated his intention to appeal by filing a Petition for Extension of Time to File a Petition.
• He admitted to an error in judgment when he considered pursuing a Motion for Execution instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari, alleging that he acted in good faith in his subsequent course of action.
• Respondent also argued that he had a record of winning three out of four cases handled for complainant and his uncle, emphasizing his commitment and fair treatment, including not charging fees in a criminal case.

Complainant’s Counter Allegations

• In a letter-reply dated February 7, 2003, complainant disputed respondent’s version of events, stating:
• Payments made (P1,500 plus P500 per hearing) were not mere acceptance fees, and there were deficiencies regarding the receipts for such payments.
• The assertion that complainant was in the province to follow up on the case was false, as it was reportedly the uncle who made frequent follow-ups.
• Although complainant reimbursed docket fees, it was respondent who physically paid them to the Court of Appeals.
• Respondent made several unfulfilled promises regarding the case status.

Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings

• The sole issue for resolution was whether respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing in his duty to file the petition for review and maintain open lines of communication.
• The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Milagros V. San Juan, recommended that respondent be disciplined due to his inexcusable failure to file the petition despite being aware of its deadline (evidenced by his payment of docket fees and multiple extensions).
• The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the recommendation through a formal Resolution, resulting in a suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months.
• The Court’s decision highlighted respondent’s neglect of his fiduciary duty to protect his client’s interests through competence and diligence, as mandated by ethical and professional standards.

Issue:

• Whether respondent Atty. Bernardo G. Juanino, by failing to file a timely petition for review and neglecting to keep his client informed, violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether his repeated delays, extension requests, and subsequent defense of pursuing alternative legal remedies constitute inexcusable negligence amounting to a breach of ethical duties owed to his client.
• Whether respondent’s conduct, specifically his lack of diligence and communication, materially prejudiced the legal interests of complainant, thus justifying the imposition of disciplinary measures.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)