B.M. No. 2540 - IN RE: Medado

Complainant Alfredo C. Olvida engaged respondent Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales in early November 2000 for the handling and filing of a case for termination of tenancy against tenant Alfonso Lumanta over a 54,000-sq.m. coconut farm in Tibungco, Davao City.
The case involved a dispute where the tenant had stopped paying rent and left the property in disrepair.
On December 5, 2000, the complainant paid the respondent a fee for acceptance (P15,000.00) and an advance appearance fee (P700.00).

The respondent requested copies of pertinent documents and affidavits from the complainant to prepare a position paper required for the DARAB proceedings.
The case was filed on January 22, 2001, and the complainant, representing his wife Norma Rodaje-Olvida, provided documentary evidence on March 22, 2001, which included:

A directive from the DARAB after the February 21, 2001 hearing required the submission of position papers within 40 days.

Despite repeated telephone inquiries by the complainant up to April 25, 2001 (the final day for submission), the respondent was unreachable.
The complainant visited the respondent’s office but was met with uninformative responses by the secretary, who initially stated that a position paper had been filed.
Eventually, the complainant learned on December 13, 2001—nine months after the filing deadline—that the DARAB decision had dismissed the case for lack of merit, and that no position paper had been submitted by the respondent.
The complainant discovered that the respondent had in fact received a copy of the decision before he did and had concealed this fact, leading to termination of the respondent’s services.
Due to the urgency, the complainant engaged another lawyer to file a motion for reconsideration.

On September 2, 2002, the Supreme Court required the respondent to comment on the complaint.
Over several years, the respondent filed multiple motions for extension citing reasons such as a change of office address and personal issues (attending to his wife with a brain tumor).
The respondent’s failure to timely and properly respond led to a fine of P2,000.00 for non-compliance with a January 19, 2009 resolution.
The respondent eventually filed his comment on March 17, 2010, contending that the complainant’s accusations were unfounded and attributing the failure to file the position paper to a difference of opinion and the complainant’s inadequate submission of documents.
On August 9, 2010, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero, in his report dated July 15, 2011, found the respondent negligent for failing to file the required position paper and opined that his actions were not only negligent but showed an unprofessional disregard for his client’s interest.
Based on this, the IBP recommended a four-month suspension, which was approved by the IBP Board of Governors on February 13, 2013, through Resolution No. XX-2013-164.

On June 16, 2015, the Supreme Court, en banc, rendered a decision upholding the IBP’s findings on the respondent’s negligence.
The Court emphasized that the respondent violated Canon 17 (fidelity to client) and Canon 18 (duty to diligently keep the client informed) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The respondent’s failure to file the position paper and his dishonest conduct in handling the case led the Court to impose a three-year suspension from the practice of law.
The decision also directed the respondent to formally manifest his receipt of the decision and to notify all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he had appeared as counsel, with a public filing of the decision.

Whether the respondent’s failure to file the required position paper before the DARAB constituted negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer.

Whether the delay and lack of communication with the client amounted to a breach of the duty under Rule 18.04 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the respondent’s actions, including misrepresenting the status of the position paper and withholding information regarding the adverse decision, were tantamount to dishonesty and unprofessional conduct.

Whether the disciplinary sanction imposed by the IBP (initially a four-month suspension) should be increased in light of the gravity of the respondent’s misconduct and its impact on the complainant.

Whether the respondent’s claimed difference of opinion and allegations of inadequate submission of documents by the client could legally justify his inaction and failure to perform his professional duties.
Whether the misconduct merits a more severe penalty to serve as a deterrent against similar neglect in legal practice.