Case Summary (A.C. No. 12835)
Antecedents and Case Progression
On May 9, 2002, Danilo filed the aforementioned complaint through Atty. Perez in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). By December 10, 2003, the RTC dismissed the case due to Atty. Perez's non-appearance at the pre-trial conference. Although Atty. Perez requested reconsideration, he neglected to attend subsequent rescheduled hearings, leading to the case's second dismissal. Danilo, seeking updates, found out about the dismissal only through his cousin's inquiry at the RTC, prompting him to file a disbarment complaint against Atty. Perez with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Atty. Perez's Defense and IBP Findings
In his defense, Atty. Perez denied negligence, claiming diligence in his representation and citing an appearance on November 23, 2004, for the presentation of evidence, although a lack of time delayed the hearing. He stated that mediation failed, and he communicated his desire to withdraw as counsel to Danilo, claiming to have sent notifications to facilitate Danilo's hiring of new counsel. Nonetheless, his failure to provide satisfactory updates and the lack of formal withdrawal procedures resulted in a misconduct finding by the IBP.
IBP Recommendation and Reconsideration
On August 24, 2012, the IBP recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law for Atty. Perez due to his negligence. Following a motion for reconsideration, the IBP reduced the penalty to three months on May 3, 2014, citing the absence of dishonest intent and lack of any prior disciplinary record. However, Danilo contested this reduction, prompting the IBP to revert to its original recommendation of a six-month suspension on September 28, 2017.
Ruling on Lawyer's Duties
The relationship between a lawyer and client is fiduciary and relies on a high degree of trust and competence. Lawyers are expected to maintain diligence and keep clients informed of their cases. The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) mandates that lawyers must not neglect matters entrusted to them and must communicate effectively with their clients. The evidence clearly demonstrated Atty. Perez's failure to comply with these obligations, culminating in significant detrimental consequences for Danilo's case.
Conclusion on Atty. Perez's Conduct
Despite Atty. Perez's claims of diligence, the Court found his actions inadequate, particularly in not attending critical hearings or providing updates about the case status to his client. His argument
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12835)
Antecedents
- On May 9, 2002, Danilo Sanchez (the petitioner) filed a complaint for annulment of contract, recovery of possession of real property, and damages against Peter Lim before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) through his counsel, Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez (the respondent).
- Danilo resided in the United States of America and returned there after filing the complaint.
- On December 10, 2003, the RTC dismissed the complaint due to Atty. Perez's failure to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference.
- Atty. Perez sought reconsideration, and the RTC rescheduled the pre-trial twice, but he failed to attend both times, leading to another dismissal of the case.
- Danilo attempted to reach Atty. Perez for updates on the case but received no responses.
- In October 2008, Danilo’s cousin, Leonidas Sanchez, inquired about the case from Atty. Perez but did not receive a satisfactory answer.
- Consequently, Danilo and Leonidas learned from the RTC that the case had been dismissed, prompting Danilo to file a disbarment complaint against Atty. Perez with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Respondent's Defense
- Atty. Perez denied the allegations of negligence, asserting that he had diligently managed the case.
- He claimed to have appeared in court on November 23, 2004, but stated the hearing was reset due to insufficient time.
- Atty. Perez mentioned that the RTC ordered mediation, which ultimately failed, and noted that the defendant had also failed to appear in court on October 26, 2005.
- He stated he moved for the marking of documentary exhibits and asserted he had informed Danilo of his intention to withdraw as counsel, claiming he sent notices of withdrawal with the case records for Danilo to facilitate hiring new counsel.
IBP and Court Rulings
- On August 24, 2012, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Perez due to negligence in failing to attend pre-trial hearings, resulting in the case's dismissal.
- The IBP Bo