A.C. No. 12875 - Portuguese, Jr. vs. Centro

Complainant Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr. engaged Atty. Jerry R. Centro as his counsel in Civil Case No. 7177 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Surigao City.
Atty. Centro undertook to represent Portuguese by drafting and filing the Answer to the Complaint in the said case.

Portuguese was led to believe that all necessary pleadings, including the memorandum required at the termination of the proceedings, were duly filed.
Despite repeated follow-ups, Atty. Centro informed Portuguese that the memorandum had already been filed, a representation later proven false.
On January 25, 2018, Portuguese and his family were shocked by the service of a Notice by a sheriff, which mandated compliance with a Writ of Execution, marking the first time Portuguese learned of the adverse judgment.

Portuguese alleged that Atty. Centro received a copy of the RTC’s July 10, 2017 Decision on August 10, 2017, yet failed to notify him about the unfavorable ruling.
Atty. Centro neglected to file any pleading to appeal or contest the RTC’s Decision, thus abandoning an opportunity to protect Portuguese’s legal interests.
He further misrepresented the filing of the memorandum and did not file any pleading to oppose the Motion for Execution.
Additional lapses include the failure to advise Portuguese of the scheduled hearing on the Motion for Execution and the subsequent resolution granting the said motion.

Portuguese asserted that respondent Atty. Centro was also facing other administrative charges, as evidenced by separate complaints including one filed by Emilie A. Lao and another allegedly initiated by his spouse.

An Investigating Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated April 29, 2019, found that Atty. Centro’s inaction deprived Portuguese of the opportunity to avail of every legal remedy.
The Investigating Commissioner determined that Atty. Centro had violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) — notably Rule 12.03 regarding the timely filing of pleadings and Rule 18.04 regarding the obligation to keep the client informed — as well as Canon 11 concerning respect for the courts.
His failure to file an Answer to the Complaint further demonstrated his indifference to lawful orders and his breach of the required disciplinary conduct.

Whether Atty. Centro’s conduct constitutes gross negligence, abandonment, and dereliction of his duty as counsel to Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr.
Whether his failure to file necessary pleadings and notify his client of significant developments in the case violates the specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Rule 12.03 and Rule 18.04, and Canon 11.
Whether Atty. Centro’s actions, including misrepresentation and non-response to the IBP’s orders, amount to a breach of the Lawyer’s Oath and the ethical obligations incumbent upon legal practitioners.