A.C. No. 6183 - Cheng vs. Agravante

Respondent Atty. Alexander M. Agravante served as counsel for The Rogemson Co., Inc. (Rogemson) in a labor case filed by former employee Beaver Martin B. Barril before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI in Davao City.
On June 18, 1998, Labor Arbiter Newton R. Sancho ruled in favor of Barril, ordering Rogemson to pay separation pay and backwages amounting to P130,000.00.

A copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision was received by Atty. Agravante’s law office on September 8, 1998, as evidenced by the registry return receipt.
The reglementary period to file an appeal was 10 calendar days, making the deadline September 18, 1998.

Atty. Agravante filed the Memorandum of Appeal on September 22, 1998, four days after the deadline.
The NLRC dismissed Rogemson’s appeal due to its late filing, noting that Atty. Agravante falsely certified that he received the decision on September 10, 1998, instead of September 8, 1998.

Rogemson terminated Atty. Agravante’s services and demanded compensation for the pecuniary damages caused by his negligence.
When Atty. Agravante failed to respond, Edison G. Cheng, Rogemson’s General Manager, filed an affidavit-complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline.

Allan P. Abelgas, Rogemson’s Regional Sales Manager, testified that he only learned of the decision when Atty. Agravante’s secretary informed him about the need for an appeal bond.
Sheila A. Balandra, another Rogemson employee, testified that she submitted the bond to Atty. Agravante’s office on September 21, 1998, but the appeal was still filed late.
Atty. Agravante claimed he was out of town on September 8, 1998, and only received the decision on September 10, 1998. He also alleged that Rogemson provided the bond on September 22, 1998.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Agravante guilty of negligence for failing to file the appeal on time and for misleading the NLRC about the date of receipt of the decision.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended a two-month suspension, but the Supreme Court increased the penalty.

Whether Atty. Agravante was negligent in handling Rogemson’s case by failing to file the Memorandum of Appeal within the reglementary period.
Whether Atty. Agravante misled the NLRC by falsely certifying the date of receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Whether Atty. Agravante violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 10 (candor, fairness, and good faith to the court) and Canon 18 (competence and diligence in handling legal matters).