G.R. No. L-1159 - Lino vs. Fugoso

On January 7, 1997, Ernesto Ouano, Sr. filed a forcible entry complaint against Teodulo Enriquez before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Talibon, Bohol.
Enriquez engaged the law office of Attys. Joselito M. Alo, R. L. C. Agapay, and Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr., with Atty. Lavadia assigned as counsel. Enriquez paid P20,000 acceptance fee in four installments.

On March 18, 2000, Atty. Lavadia agreed in open court to file position papers and affidavits within 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order.
Atty. Lavadia failed to file the position paper, resulting in the defendants declared in default. The MCTC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Atty. Lavadia filed a notice of appeal with sufficient bond on September 12, 2000.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the appeal on April 26, 2001, under Rule 40, Section 7(b) of the Rules of Court, for failure to file the appeal memorandum despite four granted extensions totaling over 71 days.
Atty. Lavadia’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 26, 2001.

On January 16, 2002, Enriquez filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Lavadia for gross negligence and inefficiency in failing to file necessary pleadings which caused prejudice to his client.
The complaint was docketed as A.C. No. 5686.

On July 3, 2002, the Supreme Court required Atty. Lavadia to file his comment.
Atty. Lavadia initially did not file his comment, claiming non-receipt of the complaint. The Court ordered Enriquez to furnish a copy.
Enriquez complied on December 6, 2002.
Atty. Lavadia filed multiple motions for extension citing heavy case load, family problems, and his wife’s illness. Extensions totaling 155 days were granted by various resolutions from November 2002 to July 2005.
Despite extensions, Atty. Lavadia repeatedly failed to file his comment. The Court imposed fines (P1,000 and P2,000) and ordered him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.
Atty. Lavadia paid fines but continued to excuse non-compliance citing extraordinary personal circumstances, including fire destroying his house and computer, and illness caused by “dark beings.”
No final comment filing was recorded.

On August 18, 2010, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.
A mandatory conference scheduled for January 14, 2011 was neglected by both parties.
Both parties were ordered to submit position papers. Atty. Lavadia requested another copy of the complaint due to its loss in the fire; IBP granted this request and set a 15-day filing period.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued a Report and Recommendation to disbar Atty. Lavadia, citing material prejudice to client caused by neglect and willful defiance of Court orders.
On September 28, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD’s report and denied Atty. Lavadia’s motion for reconsideration.

Upon review, the Supreme Court found Atty. Lavadia administratively liable for violating Canons 11 and 18, and Rules 10.03, 12.03, and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Court emphasized Atty. Lavadia’s persistent failure to file pleadings and comments despite numerous extensions and fines.
The Court ordered Atty. Lavadia’s DISBARMENT and struck his name off the Roll of Attorneys.

Whether or not Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. is administratively liable for gross negligence and inefficiency in handling the case of his client, Teodulo Enriquez.
Whether or not Atty. Lavadia’s failure to file position papers, appeal memorandum, and comply with Court orders warrants the disciplinary penalty of disbarment.
Whether or not repeated filing of motions for extension without subsequent compliance constitutes bad faith and willful disregard of professional responsibilities.