A.C. No. 5239 - Spouses Warriner vs. Dublin

Complainants, spouses George A. Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Reni M. Dublin for gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
The complaint arose from respondent’s handling of Civil Case No. 23,396-95 before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 16, which involved damages alleged to have been caused by a construction project by E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd.

The complainants alleged that respondent was engaged to file a complaint for damages but mishandled various procedural aspects:

Respondent requested and was given a 10-day period to submit a Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, a period which lapsed without compliance.
Despite the lapse, respondent belatedly filed his Formal Offer after the RTC had already taken judicial steps.
Respondent failed to oppose or file any comment to the opposing party’s motion to dismiss the case.

The consequences included the denial of his belated offer by the RTC and the eventual dismissal of the case to the prejudice of the complainants.

After the filing of the administrative complaint on March 14, 2000, the Court directed respondent to file his Comment on the complaint.
Respondent requested and was granted a 30-day extension; however, he failed to file his Comment even after almost two years.
The Court issued several resolutions:

Initially, a directive to show cause why he should not be subjected to disciplinary actions or found in contempt.
Subsequent resolutions imposed fines of P1,000.00 and then increased to P2,000.00 due to continued non-compliance.
A final resolution ordered respondent’s arrest and detention until he complied with the Court’s directions.

Eventually, under arrest and after the Court’s repeated directives, respondent submitted his belated Compliance and Comment.

He claimed that he lost the records of Civil Case No. 23,396-95 and made unsuccessful efforts to procure copies from the RTC.
He alleged that complainant Warriner’s marriage to an Australian was a scheme for convenience regarding his stay in the Philippines.
He asserted that he rendered his services free of charge and initially accepted the case due to criticism of the Philippine judicial system.

The respondent’s position in his later Position Paper contradicted his earlier claims:

He alternately maintained that Warriner was his only witness and later admitted to presenting additional witnesses.
He also provided conflicting explanations regarding the cause of the property damage, attributing it both to the alleged actions of Warriner and to the natural topography.
He contended that the late filing of his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence was intended to protect the legal profession by highlighting alleged fabrications in the complainants’ submissions.

The submission of Position Papers by both parties.
The Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, which found respondent guilty of mishandling the case.

The IBP Board of Governors, in their Resolution, modified the recommendation and opted for a suspension of one year citing:

Despite respondent’s motions for reconsideration, he reiterated his arguments that his actions were not tantamount to defiance but rather a natural expression of frustration over the procedural controversies.

Respondent’s actions were seen as a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:

Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 regarding the duty to serve with competence and diligence.
Other canons and rules requiring obedience to court orders and maintaining candor and fairness in legal proceedings.

His deliberate mishandling of the case and contradictory statements further contributed to the finding of gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

Whether Atty. Reni M. Dublin’s failure to file his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence and subsequent failure to timely file his Comment amounted to gross negligence and dereliction of duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether respondent’s conduct – including his belated actions, contradictory statements, and defiance of direct court orders – justified disciplinary sanctions, particularly suspension from the practice of law.
Whether the respondent’s defense, claiming that his late filing was due to the loss of records and his objections to fabricated evidence, can exculpate him from the administrative liability imposed.
Whether the suspension imposed was commensurate with the gravity of his misconduct and necessary to protect the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.