A.C. No. 10245 - Cabiles vs. Cedo

Elibena Cabiles hired Atty. Leandro S. Cedo to handle an illegal dismissal case (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-16153-08) involving her business partners.
The payment arrangement included Php5,500.00 for drafting the respondents’ position paper and an additional Php2,000.00 for each appearance fee in the NLRC hearings.

During the March 26, 2009 hearing, only Danilo Ligbos (the complainant) appeared and submitted his Reply.
Despite being paid for his appearance, respondent lawyer did not file a Reply for his clients, adversely affecting their case.
The Labor Arbiter’s Decision on March 31, 2009 ruled in favor of Danilo, ordering the clients to pay backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay.

On October 27, 2009, the NLRC dismissed the clients’ appeal because the mandatory cash or surety bond was not posted.
Respondent lawyer allegedly misled his clients by claiming that the absence noted in the records was due to Danilo’s non-appearance, not his own failure to file a responsive pleading.

In May 2009, Elibena also retained respondent lawyer to file a criminal case for unjust vexation against Emelita Claudit.
Payment details included a handwritten receipt for acceptance fees, filing expenses, and appearance fees totaling Php45,000.00.
To fund the payment, Elibena sold her 1994 Model Mitsubishi Lancer for Php85,000.00 under an unnotarized Deed of Sale.
Despite full compensation, respondent lawyer failed to seasonably file the complaint with the City Prosecutor’s Office, leading to dismissal of the case on the grounds of prescription.

Respondent lawyer did not indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance in the filings for both cases.
A certification issued on June 29, 2010 by the MCLE Office confirmed that he had not complied with the first, second, and third compliance periods.

In his Answer, respondent lawyer argued that the March 26, 2009 hearing was intended to encourage settlement discussions or allow him time to decide on filing a responsive pleading.
He contended that the submission of cash vouchers would conflict with the clients’ defense regarding the employer-employee relationship.
He further claimed that Elibena was feigning ignorance about the appeal bond's cost and could have paid it herself.
Regarding the sale of her car, respondent lawyer asserted that he had fully paid for the vehicle, distancing himself from the clients’ financial compromise.

Elibena’s administrative complaint led to an IBP investigation, where the Investigating Commissioner found respondent lawyer guilty of violating Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The investigation underscored his gross negligence in representing his clients, particularly his failure to appear at critical hearings, properly file pleadings, advise his clients, and comply with MCLE requirements.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended a suspension from law practice for two years, later modified by the IBP Board of Governors to one year.

Whether respondent lawyer’s failure to file a Reply in the NLRC hearing constitutes gross negligence in defending his client’s interests.
Whether the manner in which he handled the appeal (including the late delivery of pleadings and failure to advise on the mandatory bond) was appropriate.

Whether respondent lawyer’s non-indication of his MCLE compliance in both cases constitutes a violation of Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether his inadequacy in representing his client in the criminal case for unjust vexation further violates Canons 17 and 18 as well as Rule 18.03.

Whether the act of allegedly misleading the clients regarding the actual reasons for the failure to file necessary pleadings and secure the appeal bond constitutes breach of fiduciary duty.