A.C. No. 12835 - Sanchez vs. Perez

On May 9, 2002, Danilo Sanchez, through his counsel Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez, filed a complaint against Peter Lim for annulment of contract, recovery of possession of real property, and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Danilo Sanchez later returned to the United States, leaving the matter in the custody of his counsel in the Philippines.

On December 10, 2003, the RTC dismissed the complaint due to Atty. Perez’s failure to appear at the pre-trial conference scheduled that day.
Despite the RTC’s rescheduling of the pre-trial conference on two subsequent occasions, Atty. Perez again failed to attend, resulting in a second dismissal of the case.

Danilo repeatedly requested updates on the status of his case from Atty. Perez but received no response.
In October 2008, Danilo’s cousin, Leonidas Sanchez, also inquired with Atty. Perez but was unable to obtain a clear explanation, prompting further inquiry from the RTC which confirmed that the case had been dismissed.

Following the discoveries about the case dismissal, Danilo Sanchez filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Perez with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Atty. Perez denied the claims of negligence, arguing that he had been diligent, noting that he appeared on November 23, 2004, for the presentation of the complainant’s evidence during a hearing that was subsequently reset for lack of material time.

After the hearing, the RTC ordered the parties to undergo mediation, which eventually failed.
The defendant Peter Lim and his counsel did not appear at the October 26, 2005, hearing, leading Atty. Perez to move for the marking of documentary exhibits before the Clerk of Court.
Atty. Perez claimed to have informed Danilo of his desire to withdraw as counsel; he even signed notices of withdrawal and sent these along with the case records so that Danilo could secure another lawyer.

On August 24, 2012, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP recommended a suspension of six months for Atty. Perez for his negligence in failing to attend the pre-trial hearings, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the case.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, although Atty. Perez later moved for reconsideration, resulting in a reduction of the penalty to a three-month suspension on May 3, 2014, based on the absence of previous disciplinary records and the absence of a selfish motive.
Aggrieved by the reduction, Danilo filed a motion for reconsideration, and on September 28, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors reinstated the earlier penalty of a six-month suspension, affirming the initial recommendation.

Whether Atty. Perez’s failure to appear during the scheduled pre-trial hearings constituted negligence in performing his professional duties.
Whether Atty. Perez’s omission to keep his client informed of the status of the case violated Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether Atty. Perez’s defense of having informed his client of his desire to withdraw as counsel is legally tenable given the proper procedural steps required for withdrawal.
Whether the disciplinary penalty of suspension for six months is appropriate in view of established jurisprudence on lawyer negligence and the protection of the lawyer-client fiduciary relationship.