G.R. No. 178233 - Gandol vs. People

Complainant: Evelyn Lorenzo-Nucum, who engaged respondent as counsel to represent her and her co-heirs in the case entitled “Alfredo Arquitola v. Pedro Lorenzo” (Civil Case No. 4047, RTC San Fernando, La Union City, Branch 30).
Respondent: Atty. Mark Nolan C. Cabalan, a law professor at the University of Baguio, hired to handle the aforementioned case.

Complainant paid respondent an acceptance fee of P15,000.00 and an appearance fee of P3,000.00 per court hearing.
In addition, when a Motion for Reconsideration was to be filed, respondent requested an additional payment of P5,000.00.

Complainant maintained consistent communication with respondent via telephone and personal visits to his office, seeking timely updates.
In November 2010, respondent informed complainant that the RTC had rendered an unfavorable Decision on August 20, 2010, and that a Motion for Reconsideration had been filed.
Respondent assured that he would file a notice of appeal if the Motion for Reconsideration were denied.

The RTC’s Decision had attained finality, and a Writ of Execution had been issued due to the intervenors’ motion.
The Motion for Reconsideration, filed 17 days late, was resolved on the merits, and no notice of appeal was subsequently filed by the respondent.

Complainant’s attempts to reach respondent were unsuccessful as calls were deflected by his secretary, who stated that “Atty. Cabalan is not around.”

Multiple orders and resolutions from the Supreme Court (dated October 19, 2011; September 12, 2012; June 19, 2013; and August 30, 2016) and an order from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (February 2, 2018) required respondent to file comments or a position paper.
Respondent failed to file the required documents, and his non-compliance was seen as an admission of guilt.
The Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation determined that respondent’s actions constituted negligence and a violation of the duty to serve his client competently and diligently.

Whether respondent’s filing of the Motion for Reconsideration, which was submitted 17 days late, demonstrated negligence in handling complainant’s case.
Whether the failure to file a notice of appeal after the Motion for Reconsideration was denied constituted a neglect of duty and a breach of his responsibilities as counsel.
Whether respondent’s overall handling of the case, including poor communication and failure to update his client, violated the professional duty of competence and diligence.
Whether respondent’s repeated acts of non-compliance with judicial and IBP orders and previous disciplinary records should be considered aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sanction.