Facts:

This case involves a complaint for disbarment and damages filed by spouses Lolita and Romy Galen, spouses Enriqueta and Tomas Rasdas, and spouses Esperanza and Ernesto Villa against Atty. Antonio B. Paguirigan. The events leading to the complaint began when the complainants were defendants in a civil case for the recovery of a residential lot, which was adjudicated in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Ilagan, Isabela. On November 6, 1995, the trial court rendered a favorable judgment for the complainants. Trusting Atty. Paguirigan's legal representation, the complainants continued to engage his services when the opposing party appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. In October 1997, the complainants were informed by a representative of Atty. Paguirigan that the Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court's decision. Upon further inquiry, they discovered that Atty. Paguirigan had failed to file an appellee's brief despite being notified of the need to d...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
   Complainants, spouses Lolita and Romy Galen, spouses Enriqueta and Tomas Rasdas, and spouses Esperanza and Ernesto Villa, were defendants in a civil case for the recovery of a residential lot before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Ilagan, Isabela. Respondent Atty. Antonio B. Paguirigan represented them in this case.

2. Trial Court Decision:
   On November 6, 1995, the RTC rendered a judgment in favor of the complainants. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

3. Failure to File Appellee’s Brief:
   In October 1997, complainants were informed that the CA had reversed the RTC’s decision. Upon inquiry, they discovered that respondent had failed to file an appellee’s brief despite receiving notice. Respondent assured them he would seek a review of the CA’s decision in the Supreme Court and received P10,000.00 from complainants for docket fees and expenses.

4. Late Filing of Petition for Review:
   Respondent filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review, which the Supreme Court granted. However, the petition was filed six days late, resulting in its denial. Complainants only learned of the denial when they received a writ of execution from the trial court on April 16, 1999.

5. Respondent’s Defense:
   Respondent claimed he represented the complainants without remuneration and did his best to assist them. He argued that he did not file the appellee’s brief because he was confident the trial court’s decision would be affirmed. He also claimed that the late filing of the petition for review was due to a misunderstanding of the extension period.

6. IBP Recommendation:
   The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a six-month suspension for respondent. The IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation, which was forwarded to the Supreme Court for final approval.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Duty of Competence and Diligence:
   Lawyers are bound to protect their clients’ interests with utmost diligence and competence. Failure to file necessary pleadings, such as an appellee’s brief or a petition for review, constitutes a serious lapse in this duty.

2. Importance of Filing Appellee’s Brief:
   While the failure to file an appellee’s brief is not a ground for an adverse ruling, it is crucial for the appellate court’s review process. The appellate court relies heavily on the briefs and memoranda submitted by the parties.

3. Consequences of Negligence:
   A lawyer’s negligence in handling a client’s case not only harms the client but also undermines the administration of justice. Such negligence warrants disciplinary action, including suspension and reimbursement of damages.

4. Ignorance of Basic Legal Principles:
   Lawyers are expected to be familiar with fundamental legal principles and procedures. Ignorance of these principles, such as the reckoning of extension periods, is inexcusable and reflects poorly on the lawyer’s competence.

5. Refund of Fees:
   When a lawyer fails to render competent service, they should refund any fees received from the client. This ensures that clients are not financially burdened by the lawyer’s negligence.