A.C. No. 5505 - Ramos vs. Velasco-Jacoba

Complainant Severino Ramos and his wife were defendants in a civil case for the collection of a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Cabanatuan City.
After judgment was rendered against them, they retained the services of Atty. Ellis Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals.

The attorneys were given a total extension of 135 days by the Court of Appeals to file the appellants’ brief.
Atty. Ellis Jacoba, acting as counsel for the complainant and his wife, failed to file the brief within the prescribed period despite these extensions.
As a consequence, the appeal was dismissed, rendering the adverse decision of the Regional Trial Court final and executory.

Severino Ramos subsequently filed a verified complaint titled “Sinumpaang Salaysay” before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
In his complaint, the complainant alleged that he and his wife paid P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and an acceptance fee, as well as an additional P8,000.00 for expenses in the preparation of the brief.
The failure of Atty. Ellis Jacoba to file the brief prompted the request for his disbarment.

Neither respondent filed an answer to the complaint despite being granted two extensions of time.
They also failed to appear before the Commission on Bar Discipline despite due notice, leaving the allegations and evidence uncontested.

Suspension of Atty. Ellis Jacoba from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Ordering Atty. Ellis Jacoba to return P10,000.00 to the complainant within fifteen (15) days.
Admonishment of Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba to exercise greater diligence with a warning that repeated negligence would be met with more severe sanctions.

The IBP Board of Governors approved the report with a modification, recommending a three (3) month suspension for Atty. Ellis Jacoba for gross negligence and malpractice that caused actual loss to the complainant.

The Court found the IBP recommendation to be well taken, noting the failure of respondent Atty. Ellis Jacoba in fulfilling his professional duty.
The Court observed that this was the second instance of misconduct by Atty. Ellis Jacoba.
It was highlighted that the failure to file the required brief not only resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, but also in additional consequences, including finality of the adverse decision and financial implications (i.e., payment of P107,000.00 by the complainant and his wife).
The tragic outcome of the complainant’s wife dying upon learning of the dismissal was also noted.

Rule 12.03 – Prohibiting the lapse of extensions without filing or explaining the delay.
Rule 18.03 – Prohibiting the neglect of legal matters entrusted by a client.

Previous jurisprudence and disciplinary cases (e.g., Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, People vs. Villar, People vs. Daban, and People vs. Estocada) were cited to reinforce the duty of diligence and loyalty owed by lawyers.
A prior disciplinary case (Adm. Case No. 2594) involving Atty. Ellis Jacoba was referenced, where he was suspended for six (6) months for similar neglect in filing a legal action.

Whether Atty. Ellis Jacoba’s failure to file the appellants’ brief, despite multiple extensions, constitutes gross negligence and malpractice warranting disciplinary sanctions.

Consideration of the attorney’s duty of fidelity, diligence, and the obligation to promptly represent the client’s interests.
The impact of his inexcusable negligence on the finality of the adverse decision, which adversely affected the complainant and his wife.

Whether the sanction imposed by the IBP (a three-month suspension) should be enhanced given the gravity of the lapse and the history of similar misconduct by Atty. Ellis Jacoba.

Evaluation of the repeated failure despite previous disciplinary measures.
Assessment of the actual loss incurred by the complainant and the broader implications on public trust and the administration of justice.

Whether there is sufficient basis to impose any disciplinary action against Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba, given her limited role in the case.

Consideration of her involvement, which was restricted to assisting in filing the notice of appeal before the trial court.
Determination if her conduct warrants sanction or admonishment under the circumstances.