G.R. No. 152621-23; March 14, 2006
Ma. Gina L. Francisco, Josephine S. Tan and Carlos M. Joaquin, Complainants, vs. Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, relatives of accused police officers convicted by the Sandiganbayan of homicide and attempted homicide, engaged respondent Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal to handle their appeal. After the Sandiganbayan denied his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration—a prohibited pleading—and subsequently a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam) with the Supreme Court. Thereafter, respondent ceased all communication with his clients, moved offices without a forwarding address, and failed to inform them of the case status.
Complainants later discovered that the Supreme Court had denied their petition due to late filing and non-payment of docket fees, a resolution which had attained finality, leading to the issuance of warrants for the accused’s arrest. Respondent claimed he was never formally engaged, acted merely out of professional courtesy, and had attempted to withdraw by sending a letter to his clients, which they allegedly did not file. He also argued the petition was timely filed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Portugal violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through gross negligence and misconduct in handling his clients’ case.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross negligence and misconduct. The Court found that by filing a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, respondent demonstrated a lack of basic procedural knowledge. More critically, he abandoned his clients after filing the ad cautelam petition. His failure to monitor the case, inform his clients of the denial, and take remedial action constituted a blatant violation of Canon 18 (diligence) and Rule 18.04 (duty to inform) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His disappearance directly caused the petition’s denial to become final and the issuance of arrest warrants, causing severe prejudice.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. His claim of informal engagement is contradicted by his active representation, including filing multiple pleadings. His alleged attempt to withdraw via an unverified letter was ineffective without court approval as required by the Rules of Court. A lawyer cannot unilaterally abandon a client, especially in a critical stage, without ensuring the client is not prejudiced. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s recommendation and suspended respondent from the practice of law for three months.