AC 5686; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 5686. June 16, 2015.
TEODULO F. ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EDILBERTO B. LAVADIA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Teodulo F. Enriquez engaged the legal services of the law office where respondent Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. was the assigned attorney for a forcible entry case filed against him. Atty. Lavadia agreed in court to submit the position papers but failed to do so, resulting in the defendants being declared in default and an adverse decision from the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). Atty. Lavadia filed a notice of appeal but subsequently failed to file the required appeal memorandum despite being granted four motions for extension by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which led to the dismissal of the appeal. Enriquez filed this disbarment complaint for gross negligence and inefficiency. During the administrative proceedings, Atty. Lavadia repeatedly failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders to file his comment, necessitating multiple extensions, the imposition of fines for contempt, and a referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found him liable and recommended disbarment, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted and later denied his motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. should be held administratively liable for gross negligence and inefficiency in handling his client’s case and for willful defiance of court orders.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Lavadia is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP, ordering his disbarment. The Court found that Atty. Lavadia violated his duties to his client and to the court. He breached Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him, specifically failing to file the position paper and the appeal memorandum, causing material prejudice to his client. He also violated Rule 12.03 of the CPR by obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings but letting the periods lapse without submission. Furthermore, his repeated failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives during the disbarment proceeding constituted willful defiance and disrespect for judicial processes, violating Canon 11 of the CPR in relation to Rules 10.03 and 12.03. His actions demonstrated unfitness for the legal profession, warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment.