A.C. No. 7749 - Caranza Vda. de Saldivar vs. Cabanes, Jr.

Complainant Josefina Caranza vda. de Saldivar was involved as the defendant in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 1972) filed by the heirs of Benjamin Don before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur.
Respondent Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. acted as her lawyer in the said case.

Respondent filed an answer to the unlawful detainer complaint but failed to submit a pre-trial brief and did not attend the scheduled preliminary conference.
Due to his absence, opposing counsel moved for the submission of the case for decision, which was granted by the court via an Order dated November 27, 2003.

The MTC issued a Decision on December 30, 2003 ordering complainant to vacate and turn over possession of the subject property and to pay damages to the heirs.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) later reversed the MTC Decision, dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint, but the Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently reinstated the MTC Decision.
Respondent received notice of the CA ruling on January 27, 2006, but failed to inform complainant, even though she frequented his workplace.

When confronted, respondent apologized and reassured complainant, claiming assurance based on her title to the property.
He admitted having observed discrepancies between the property descriptions in the heirs’ complaint and those provided by complainant.
At the preliminary conference on October 28, 2003, respondent moved for the suspension of further proceedings and proposed a re-survey by a DAR Engineer to resolve the property description issue.
An agreement was reached with the heirs’ counsel to provide documents for the re-survey; however, these were not furnished, leading respondent to believe that the scheduled preliminary conference on November 27, 2003 would be cancelled.
Citing a coinciding provincial conference, respondent failed to attend the hearing, inadvertently missing a critical opportunity to protect complainant’s interests.

Despite filing an appeal of the adverse MTC Decision to the RTC (which was initially favorable to complainant) the matter was reversed again by the CA.
Respondent later learned of a petition for exemption from Presidential Decree No. 27 concerning the subject property, which reinforced his belief that complainant’s interests were secure.
He advised complainant to pursue administrative remedies instead of contesting the appeal, formulating a legal strategy that relied on potential future judicial reliefs.
The DAR Engineer’s survey eventually showed that only part of the property was tilled by complainant while the remainder belonged to the heirs, prompting complainant to hire a private surveyor.
The deteriorating lawyer-client relationship led complainant to accuse respondent of manipulating survey results, and eventually, she severed ties with him after retrieving the entire case folder.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was referred the administrative complaint for evaluation following a Resolution dated July 7, 2008.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline convened a mandatory conference on April 15, 2009 and required the parties to submit their respective position papers.
On June 18, 2009, the Investigating IBP Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation finding respondent negligent in failing to attend the preliminary conference, in not inquiring about its status, and in not countering or commenting on the appellate proceedings.
The IBP Commission ruled that such negligence, constituting a breach of duties under Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18, warranted a suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Further motions for reconsideration by respondent were denied in subsequent IBP resolutions.

Whether respondent’s failure to attend the scheduled preliminary conference and to file the pre-trial brief constitutes gross negligence in the performance of his duties as counsel.

Analysis of the respondent’s absence leading to the case’s submission for decision.
The impact of such absence on the outcome of the unlawful detainer proceedings.

Whether respondent’s failure to notify the complainant about the Court of Appeals ruling, and his subsequent inaction regarding the appeal, breached his duty under Canon 17 (fidelity and trust) and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 (competence, diligence, and proper client communication).

The legal implications of neglecting to inform the client of important judicial developments.
Whether duly advising the client of alternative legal remedies would have mitigated the loss.

Whether respondent’s post-hearing legal strategy—including his proposal for a re-survey and reliance on future administrative remedies—was a sufficient substitute for timely and proper court representation.