Facts:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Isaac C. Basilio, Perlita Pedrozo, and Jun Basilio against Atty. Virgil R. Castro. The events leading to the complaint began on July 5, 2004, when the complainants engaged Atty. Castro to represent them in three civil cases: Civil Case Nos. 1427 and 1428 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, and Civil Case No. 883 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bayombong, Branch 37. The cases before the MTC were for forcible entry against the complainants, while the RTC case was for quieting of title. On February 10, 2005, the MTC ruled against the complainants, and their subsequent appeal was dismissed by RTC Branch 30 due to their failure to file the required appellants' memorandum. At the time of the administrative complaint, the RTC case was still pending. The complainants alleged that they paid Atty. Castro a total of P60,000 as acceptance and filing fees, despite the actual filing fee being on...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• An administrative complaint was filed by Isaac C. Basilio, Perlita Pedrozo, and Jun Basilio against respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro.
• The complaint arose from the legal services rendered by Atty. Castro in several civil cases, and the subsequent alleged lapses in his performance.

Engagement of Legal Services and Cases Involved

• On 5 July 2004, the complainants engaged Atty. Castro to handle:
• Civil Case Nos. 1427 and 1428 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, involving forcible entry actions.
• Civil Case No. 883 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37 in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, involving a quieting of title action.
• The cases before MTC Bambang resulted in a decision against the petitioners on 10 February 2005.
• When petitioners appealed the MTC decision, the RTC Branch 30 dismissed the appeal due to the failure to file the mandatory appellants’ memorandum.

Allegations by the Complainants

• The complainants alleged that:
• They paid Atty. Castro a P40,000 acceptance fee and a P20,000 filing fee, despite the actual filing fee being only P1,000.
• The total amount paid for attorney’s fees and other expenses amounted to P110,500, yet only an official receipt for P40,000 was issued.
• Atty. Castro negligently failed to prosecute the cases before MTC Bambang, leading to the dismissal of their appeal due to non-submission of the requisite memorandum.
• They further contended that his inaction harmed their interests, reflecting a significant lapse in his duty as counsel.

Atty. Castro’s Response and Defense

• In his comment, Atty. Castro clarified:
• He was preceded by two other lawyers who initially handled the cases.
• Upon his entry as counsel, he made earnest efforts to protect the clients’ interests.
• The petitioners’ directive played a role when they instructed him to abandon the appeal before RTC Branch 30, owing to their inability to post the required supersedeas bond.
• His focus subsequently shifted to Civil Case No. 883, where he contended to have dutifully performed his responsibilities.
• He corrected the record indicating that the petitioners were defendants, not plaintiffs, in the forcible entry cases.
• He maintained that the funds received were utilized for his legal and filing fees, and denied repeatedly postponing hearings as alleged.

Investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

• On 28 June 2006, the case was referred to the IBP for an investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The IBP proceedings were marked by several irregularities:
• Atty. Castro missed the first hearing due to a serious ailment.
• The Investigating Commissioner was unavailable during the second hearing.
• The complainants were unable to attend the third hearing.
• As a result, the parties submitted their respective Pre-Trial Briefs:
• The complainants reiterated their allegations of overcharging and breach of duty.
• Atty. Castro provided no substantive rebuttal in his Pre-Trial Brief.

Findings and Recommendations by the IBP

• The Investigating Commissioner in the Report and Recommendation dated 11 April 2008 concluded:
• There was insufficient evidence regarding his performance in Civil Case No. 883.
• Atty. Castro was found administratively liable for failing to file the mandatory appellants’ memorandum before RTC Branch 30.
• He attempted to shift the blame for the non-filing to the petitioners’ failure to post the supersedeas bond.
• His reliance on the petitioners’ alleged instruction to abandon the appeal was deemed preposterous given his professional duty.
• The IBP Board of Governors, through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-239 dated 22 May 2008, approved the recommendation with modifications, initially ordering a three-month suspension.
• Atty. Castro filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Motion for Reconsideration, which did not ultimately affect the proceedings.

Final Development Leading to the Court’s Action

• The central issue was whether Atty. Castro’s failure to file the required appellants’ memorandum constituted actionable negligence.
• The complaint was grounded on a breach of his professional duty to timely safeguard the interests of his clients.
• Subsequent court rulings and references to precedents underscored the gravity of failing to comply with procedural mandates, culminating in disciplinary measures.

Issue:

• Whether Atty. Virgil R. Castro should be held administratively liable for his failure to file the mandatory appellants’ memorandum before RTC Branch 30.
• Whether his reliance on the petitioners’ alleged instruction to abandon the appeal sufficiently excuses his negligence.
• The determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction in light of the alleged lapse in professional responsibility.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)