A.C. No. 5279 - Telles vs. Dancel

Complainant Romeo Telles filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel on June 1, 2000, alleging gross negligence and inefficiency in handling his case.
Atty. Dancel was engaged as the legal counsel for an action for annulment of a deed of quitclaim, which Telles subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) after a loss at the trial court.

Atty. Dancel filed four separate motions for extension of time (dated August 30, 1999; September 29, 1999; October 15, 1999; and October 29, 1999) to file Telles’ appellant’s brief.
Despite being granted a total of 75 days for filing, Atty. Dancel failed to submit the appellant’s brief.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
Atty. Dancel did not notify Telles of the dismissal or provide any explanation, leaving Telles to learn of the development through third parties.

The trial court and appellate decisions were tainted by delays, including the untimely filing of the Formal Offer of Evidence (filed 88 days late).
The Court issued several orders:

On August 2, 2000, directing Atty. Dancel to file his Comment on Telles’ complaint.
On August 21, 2000, ordering Atty. Dancel to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily sanctioned for his failure to file.
On November 29, 2000, granting his motions for extension of time to file an Answer.
On August 21, 2002, issuing another show-cause order pertaining to his noncompliance.

On July 14, 2003, a fine of P1,000.00 (with the alternative of 10 days imprisonment) accompanied by an order to file the required Comment within 10 days.
On July 19, 2006, an increased fine of P2,000.00 and a reiteration of the order to file the Comment.

On August 17, 2006, Atty. Dancel filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming he was unaware that an administrative case had been initiated against him and attributing his noncompliance to a misplaced copy of the Court’s Resolution due to his secretary.
On November 29, 2006, the Court furnished him copies of the Complaint and the Resolution; however, he continued to neglect the Court’s orders.
On April 20, 2009, the Court directed the National Bureau of Investigation to arrest and detain him and mandated payment of a P3,000.00 fine along with the filing of the Comment.
Atty. Dancel eventually paid the fine on August 10, 2009 but persisted in his delayed compliance until he finally filed a one-page Comment on October 15, 2015, citing serious illness (diabetes) as his reason for the delays.

A copy of Telles’ Certificate of Death was submitted by Atty. Dancel, indicating that Telles died on August 10, 2000, shortly after filing the complaint.
The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) on June 18, 2018, for investigation, report, and recommendation.
On April 22, 2019, the OBC submitted its Report and Recommendation, concluding that Atty. Dancel violated Canon 11, Rule 12.03, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The OBC recommended a suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years, stating that repeated failure to file pleadings and to comply with Court orders pointed to a propensity for negligence with no convincing documentary evidence to support his claim of serious illness.

The majority of the Court agreed with the OBC’s findings of negligence and administrative misconduct.
The Court stressed that the duties of a lawyer include unwavering commitment to the client and strict observance of Court orders.
Based on Atty. Dancel’s repeated noncompliance—including his failure to file the appellant’s brief and his neglect in informing his client of important developments—the Court imposed the most severe penalty.
Ultimately, the majority ruled on the disciplinary action of disbarment; the decision ordered that Atty. Dancel’s name be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Justice Caguioa, in a separate opinion, concurred with the OBC’s findings of prospective administrative liability but argued that suspension for three years would be the more appropriate penalty.
Justice Caguioa noted that although Atty. Dancel’s conduct exhibited negligence and disregard for Court orders, it did not rise to the extreme of warranting disbarment, which is reserved for particularly heinous and unredeemable conduct.
He emphasized the need for a clear demarcation between offenses that justify disbarment and those that are remediable by a lesser sanction.

Whether Atty. Dancel’s repeated failure to file required pleadings and his disregard for multiple Court orders constitute grounds for administrative liability.
Whether his conduct, particularly the failure to inform Telles about the dismissal of the appellate case, amounted to gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of his professional duties.
Whether Atty. Dancel’s explanation of his purported serious illness (diabetes) is a sufficient justification for his failure to comply with mandatory deadlines and Court orders.
Whether the death of the complainant, Telles, has any mitigating effect on Atty. Dancel’s administrative liability.
Whether the imposition of the penalty of disbarment is justified given the facts or if a lesser sanction, such as suspension, would be more appropriate to achieve the purposes of disciplinary action.