Case Digest (A.C. No. 12835)
Facts:
Danilo Sanchez v. Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez, A.C. No. 12835, February 03, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, M., J., writing for the Court. The case is an administrative disciplinary proceeding following an Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigation and Board of Governors resolutions.On May 9, 2002, Danilo Sanchez (complainant) engaged Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez to file a complaint for annulment of contract, recovery of possession of real property, and damages against Peter Lim in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Shortly after filing, Danilo returned to the United States. The RTC scheduled a pre-trial on December 10, 2003; Atty. Perez did not appear and the RTC dismissed the complaint. He sought reconsideration; the RTC rescheduled the pre-trial twice, but Atty. Perez again failed to attend and the RTC dismissed the case anew for his absence.
Danilo repeatedly sought information but received no timely response. In October 2008 his cousin inquired with Atty. Perez but got no clear answer; inquiry with the RTC confirmed the dismissal. Danilo filed a disbarment complaint with the IBP. Atty. Perez denied negligence, asserting he attended a November 23, 2004 hearing, that hearings were reset and mediation had been attempted, that the defendant failed to appear on October 26, 2005, and that he had moved for marking of exhibits and informed Danilo of his desire to withdraw—allegedly sending notices and records to Danilo.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended suspension for six months for negligence; the IBP Board of Governors initially adopted that recommendation. Atty. Perez moved for reconsideration and the Board reduced the penalty to suspension for three months on May 3, 2014. Complainant sought reconsideration; on September 28, 2017 the IBP Board rein...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez violate his duties of competence and diligence and his obligation to keep his client informed under the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon/Rules 18.03 and 18.04) by failing to appear at scheduled pre-trials and by not informing his client of the case status?
- If a violation is found, what discipl...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)