AC 4920; (October, 2005) (Digest)

G.R. No. 4920. October 19, 2005.
Leopoldo V. Credito, et al. vs. Atty. Salvador T. Sabio.

FACTS

Complainants were employees of Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company (Biscom) who engaged respondent Atty. Salvador T. Sabio to represent them in an illegal dismissal case. The labor arbiter ruled in their favor, but the NLRC reversed the decision. Complainants then requested Atty. Sabio to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari, contributing money for expenses. The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition on March 2, 1992, due to failure to pay the proper docket fees and lack of the required certification against forum shopping.
Atty. Sabio allegedly kept the dismissal from the complainants’ knowledge for over three years. In his defense, he claimed the docket fee was paid via money order and that the procedural lapses occurred because Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 was not yet widely disseminated. He also stated he filed a Motion for Reconsideration and verbally informed some complainants of the final denial.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Salvador T. Sabio is administratively liable for negligence in handling his clients’ case.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Sabio is administratively liable for negligence. The Supreme Court found that he violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate fidelity to a client’s cause and the duty to serve with competence and diligence. His failure to ensure the payment of the correct docket fees and to attach the certification against forum shopping constituted simple negligence, directly causing the dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari and prejudicing his clients’ interests.
The Court rejected his excuses. Circular No. 28-91 was already effective, and as counsel, he was charged with knowledge of such procedural rules. His claim of having paid the fees was unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, his failure to promptly and formally inform his clients of the case’s dismissal for over three years was a blatant disregard of Rule 18.04, which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed. This neglect betrayed the trust reposed in him. Considering the prejudice caused and his previous suspension in another case, a mere warning was insufficient. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty and suspended Atty. Sabio from the practice of law for one year.