Case Summary (G.R. No. 187714)
Background and Proceedings
After the trial court ruled against the complainants, they sought to appeal the decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) issued a directive on May 24, 2010, requiring the filing of the appeal brief under Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court. The complainants gave respondent P2,000.00 to file the appeal brief and were assured the brief would be filed by the July 15, 2010 deadline. Respondent did not file the appeal brief. Subsequently, the CA dismissed the appeal on October 26, 2010, for failure to file the required brief, making the trial court’s decision final and executory.
Respondent’s Defense
In his comment dated December 29, 2011, respondent claimed that he intentionally did not file the appeal brief because one of the complainants, Severino Pascual, informed him that the parties had already settled, and Damaso Sta. Maria had vacated the property. He asserted that despite efforts, he could not contact the complainants and they did not follow up on the appeal status. He denied accepting the P2,000.00, claiming that Damaso Sta. Maria attempted to extort money from him to prevent an administrative complaint.
Findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner
The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Romualdo A. Din, Jr., found respondent guilty of violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He concluded the respondent exhibited inexcusable negligence by failing to file the appeal brief. The Commissioner rejected respondent’s claim concerning the alleged settlement because respondent represented eight clients, not only Pascual, and thus owed the duty to safeguard all their interests. Respondent failed to verify or document any settlement, which was necessary to properly inform the Court of Appeals.
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution
By Resolution No. XXII-2017-1206 dated June 17, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, supporting the finding of violation and recommending a three-month suspension.
Legal Issue
The core issue was whether respondent was liable for violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR, specifically for failing to file an appellant’s brief, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
Applicable Law: Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 18 mandates that a lawyer serve their client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 proscribes neglect of legal matters entrusted to an attorney and holds that negligence renders the lawyer liable. The client-lawyer relationship involves utmost trust and confidence, requiring the lawyer to actively manage and diligently pursue the client’s cause without reminders.
Duty of a Lawyer and Consequences of Negligence
The Supreme Court emphasized that accepting a legal engagement entails exercising reasonable care and skill to protect the client’s interest. Negligence, including failure to perform obligations, constitutes a breach warranting disciplinary action. Under the Revised Rules of Court, failure to file an appellant’s brief results in dismissal of the appeal.
Analysis of Respondent’s Conduct
Respondent admitted to intentionally not filing the appeal brief, offering inconsistent explanations: he relied on an unconfirmed information of settlement and claimed inability to reach clients. His contradictory statements reflected a lack of candor and undermined his defenses. Consequently, his gross negligence caused complainants to lose their right to have the case reviewed, consigning their claims to finality without due process. This conduct breached his duty not only to the clients but also to the Court.
Precedential Authority
The Court invoked Spouses Aranda v. Atty. Elayda to highlight the duty of counsel to both client and court, underscoring that abandonment or neglect of client’s cause constitutes sufficient grounds for disciplinary sanction.
Penalty and Precedents
The IBP recommended a three-month suspension. However, the Court found this insufficient based on analogous case
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187714)
Background and Antecedents of the Complaint
- Complainants Damaso Sta. Maria, Juanito Tapang, and Liberato Omania filed a sworn complaint dated July 1, 2011, charging Atty. Ricardo Atayde, Jr. with violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- Respondent acted as counsel for complainants in consolidated Civil Case Nos. 5208 and 5391 before RTC Branch 30, Cabanatuan City.
- Civil Case No. 5208 involved a petition for cancellation of certain Transfer Certificates of Title with an injunction prayer, titled "Damaso Sta. Maria et al. v. Sps. Eufrocena Antonio and Gregorio Antonio, Register of Deed of Cabanatuan City."
- Civil Case No. 5391 was an accion publiciana case titled "Eufrocena Antonio joined by her husband Gregorio Antonio v. Damaso Sta. Maria et al."
- The trial court ruled against complainants, and on appeal, the Court of Appeals directed complainants to file the appeal brief within the prescribed period.
- Complainants informed respondent of the directive, giving him P2,000.00 for filing the appeal brief with an assurance from respondent to file by the July 15, 2010 deadline.
- Respondent failed to file the appeal brief, resulting in dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals on October 26, 2010.
- Respondent did not move for reconsideration, rendering the trial court's decision final and executory.
Respondent's Defense and Explanation
- In his comment, respondent admitted intentionally not filing the appeal brief.
- Justification cited: information from one client, Severino Pascual, that parties had already amicably settled and that complainant Sta. Maria had vacated the property peacefully.
- Respondent claimed futile attempts to contact complainants from filing the notice of appeal until dismissal, concluding they had settled the case.
- Denied accepting the P2,000.00 purportedly given for filing the appeal brief.
- Alleged that complainant Sta. Maria attempted to extort money from him to desist from filing an administrative case.
Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
- The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR.
- Recommended a three-month suspension from the practice of law.
- Determined respondent’s failure to file the appeal brief constituted inexcusable negligence.
- Rejected respondent’s reliance on information from a single client