Facts:

The case involves Josefina B. Fajardo as the complainant and Atty. Danilo Dela Torre as the respondent. The events leading to the complaint began with two civil cases: Civil Case No. 581 for Forcible Entry, filed by Felisa Imperial against Josefina Fajardo, and Civil Case No. 582 for Unlawful Detainer, initiated by Fajardo against Imperial. These cases were consolidated and jointly tried by the Municipal Trial Court of Ba-ao, Camarines Sur, which ultimately ruled in favor of Imperial. Following this, Fajardo's counsel, Atty. Dela Torre, appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, which upheld the lower court's ruling. Subsequently, Fajardo instructed Dela Torre to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Dela Torre demanded a fee of P4,300.00 for the preparation and filing of the petition, which Fajardo paid. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to insufficient payment of docket fees and the failure to attach a cer...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case

   • Complainant, Josefina B. Fajardo, was the defendant in Civil Case No. 581 for Forcible Entry and the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 582 for Unlawful Detainer, both against Felisa Imperial. The cases were consolidated and decided in favor of Imperial by the Municipal Trial Court of Ba-ao, Camarines Sur.
   • Complainant, represented by respondent Atty. Danilo Dela Torre, appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, which affirmed the lower court's decision.

2. Filing of Petition for Review

   • Complainant instructed respondent to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Respondent demanded and received P4,300.00 from complainant for this purpose.
   • The petition for review was dismissed by the Court of Appeals due to insufficient payment of docket fees and failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed decision.

3. Discovery of Dismissal

   • Complainant only learned of the dismissal when her opponent, Imperial, filed a motion for new trial in a separate case, attaching a copy of the appellate court's resolution.

4. Complaint Against Respondent

   • Complainant filed a complaint against respondent for "Gross Ignorance of the Law and Negligence in the Performance of Profession."
   • Despite being notified, respondent failed to answer the complaint or appear at the scheduled hearings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).

5. IBP-CBD Findings

   • The IBP-CBD found respondent liable for negligence and recommended a fine of P1,500.00 and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Negligence in Handling the Case

   • Respondent failed to ensure the proper filing of the petition for review, resulting in its dismissal due to insufficient docket fees and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
   • Respondent also failed to inform complainant of the dismissal, violating his duty to keep the client informed under Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. Misappropriation of Client Funds

   • Respondent received P4,300.00 from complainant but only remitted P650.00 for docket fees, leaving a shortfall of P280.00. This suggests possible misappropriation of client funds, violating Canon 16 and its related rules.

3. Failure to Comply with IBP-CBD Proceedings

   • Respondent's consistent failure to answer the complaint or appear at hearings despite due notice demonstrated a lack of respect for the disciplinary process and the legal profession.

4. Aggravating Circumstances

   • A similar complaint for malpractice and unethical behavior had been filed against respondent by complainant's son, further highlighting his pattern of negligence and misconduct.

5. Appropriate Penalty

   • The Court emphasized that the penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Given respondent's multiple violations and aggravating circumstances, a one-year suspension was deemed appropriate.