G.R. No. A.C. No. 3989, December 10, 2019
Eduardo L. Alcantara, Complainant, vs. Atty. Samuel M. Salas, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Eduardo L. Alcantara hired respondent Atty. Samuel M. Salas to file a civil action for specific performance with damages. After losing in the trial court, Atty. Salas appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 26, 1990. Alcantara alleged that he had no further communication with Atty. Salas thereafter. In July 1992, Alcantara discovered that the CA had dismissed his appeal via a Resolution dated March 11, 1991, due to the non-filing of the appellant’s brief despite notices. The CA’s notices were returned unclaimed because Atty. Salas had moved without informing the court of his change of address. Alcantara informed Atty. Salas of the dismissal, but the latter blamed Alcantara for losing communication. Alcantara denied this, noting that Atty. Salas had sent a messenger to claim a check from him on November 5, 1991. Alcantara hired a new lawyer, but the Supreme Court eventually rendered an unfavorable final decision, which he attributed to Atty. Salas’s negligence. Atty. Salas defended himself by arguing that the CA should have sent notices to his current residential address as recorded in other consolidated cases, though he admitted he did not notify the CA of his change of address in this particular case.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Samuel M. Salas committed gross negligence in failing to file the appellant’s brief in the Court of Appeals.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Samuel M. Salas is guilty of gross negligence. The Court found that Atty. Salas violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires a lawyer to file required briefs or memoranda and to inform the court of any change of address. He also violated Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 of the CPR, which mandate fidelity to the client’s cause, competent and diligent service, and avoidance of neglect in legal matters entrusted to the lawyer. Atty. Salas admitted during the IBP hearing that he failed to file the appellant’s brief and did not update the CA on his current mailing address, attributing the failure to his assumption that the case was consolidated with others. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty includes maintaining communication with the court and diligently protecting the client’s interests. The failure to file the brief and update the address led to the dismissal of the appeal, causing prejudice to the client. Following jurisprudence, the Court suspended Atty. Salas from the practice of law for six months, with a stern warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.