G.R. No. 191299-191302 - Bascon vs. Negre, Jr.

Elmer Canoy, the complainant, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Board VI in Bacolod City.
Atty. Jose Max Ortiz agreed to represent Canoy in the labor case and was responsible for the filing of the position paper required by the labor arbiter.

Canoy submitted all necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the required position paper.
Despite several follow-up visits by Canoy, including one in April 2000 when he was told by the office that Atty. Ortiz was absent, there was no adequate communication regarding the status of the case.
Canoy later discovered that the case had already been dismissed in 1998 for failure to prosecute, specifically due to the non-submission of the position paper—a fact he was never informed of by his lawyer.

Atty. Ortiz, in his submitted comment, highlighted his long-standing commitment to providing legal services primarily to indigent and low-income clients, often at a personal financial sacrifice.
He detailed his role as a provider of pro bono legal assistance and his involvement in a legal assistance radio show, which he claimed contributed significantly to serving underrepresented clients.
Atty. Ortiz further noted that his election as City Councilor of Bacolod City eventually affected his availability to handle cases, including Canoy’s, although he contended that his prior election was a result of the support earned through his legal assistance.

The dismissal of Canoy’s complaint, although without prejudice, occurred because of the attorney’s failure to file the position paper within the prescribed period.
Canoy eventually withdrew the complaint; however, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) maintained its investigation, following the rule that a withdrawal does not interrupt or terminate an ongoing investigation.
The investigating commissioner found that Atty. Ortiz did not exercise the required degree of competence and diligence and recommended that he be reprimanded—a recommendation later modified to include a warning against future negligence.

Whether Atty. Ortiz’s failure to file the position paper on time constituted negligence and a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Did the lapse in filing the position paper represent a dereliction of duty toward his client, Elmer Canoy?
Was his omission to inform Canoy about the status and dismissal of the case a breach of the lawyer’s duty to keep the client informed and exercise diligence?

Whether Atty. Ortiz’s additional responsibilities as a City Councilor could justify or mitigate his negligent conduct.

Can an election to public office be considered a good cause for the withdrawal or abeyance of a lawyer’s professional duties?
Should the lawyer have taken alternative steps (such as informing his client or seeking a substitution of counsel) given his knowledge of his inability to handle the case effectively?

The appropriate disciplinary action in view of the seriousness of the violation and the need to uphold the standards of the legal profession.