Title
Supreme Court
Olvida vs. Gonzales
Case
A.C. No. 5732
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2015
Atty. Gonzales suspended for 3 years due to gross negligence, dishonesty, and failure to file position paper, violating professional duties.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186732)

Antecedents

In November 2000, the complainant engaged the respondent to file a case for Termination of Tenancy Relationship against tenant Alfonso Lumanta for failure to pay rent on a 54,000-square meter coconut farm. The complainant paid an acceptance fee and an advance appearance fee, and the case was officially filed on January 22, 2001. Following initial hearings, the DARAB required both parties to submit position papers. The complainant submitted necessary documents to the respondent by March 22, 2001. However, despite numerous follow-ups from the complainant, the position paper was not filed.

Respondent’s Failure to Act

The complaint's attempts to reach the respondent were met with barriers, and he only learned on December 13, 2001—nine months after the deadline—that the respondent had not filed the required position paper, resulting in the dismissal of the case for lack of merit. The complainant was aggrieved further upon discovering that the respondent received the decision before he did and failed to inform him, leading to the termination of their professional relationship.

Respondent’s Delays

Respondent Atty. Gonzales was required to comment on the complaint in September 2002, but he filed multiple motions for extension, citing personal issues and changes in his office address. He continued to delay, leading to a court fine for non-compliance. It wasn't until March 2010, more than seven years after the initial demand, that he finally filed a comment denying the allegations and asserting that the complainant had not followed his advice.

Investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

The case was referred to the IBP, which found the respondent negligent for failing to file the position paper. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a four-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors subsequently adopted in February 2013. However, no motion for reconsideration was filed by either party.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court evaluated the IBP’s findings and concluded that the respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates fidelity to the client's cause, and Canon 18, requiring competence and diligence. The Court found that the respondent's actions constituted gross negligence as he misled the complainant regarding the status of his case, failing to maintain communication or file essential documents.

Respondent's Negligence and Dishonesty

The Court was particularly critical of the respondent's dishonesty, noting that he had misled both the complainant and provided erroneous information regarding the filing of the position paper. It emphasized that a lawyer must act in their client's best interests and cannot blame the client for failures in representation. The respondent's systematic neglect and dishone

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.