G.R. No. A.C. No. 2405 March 11, 1992
PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., represented by its Branch Manager, NAPOLEON T. SANTIAGO, complainant, vs. ATTY. OLEGARIO SANTISTEBAN, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc., charged respondent Atty. Olegario Santisteban with malpractice for gross neglect of his duties as an attorney, seeking his disbarment or suspension. The administrative case stemmed from Civil Case No. 12945, where a third-party complaint was filed against the complainant insurance company. The complainant, originally represented by another lawyer, engaged the services of respondent due to the former’s unavailability. It is undisputed that respondent was duly paid his attorney’s fees. However, he failed to appear at scheduled hearings to present evidence for the insurance company and did not inform it of the case’s developments. When an adverse decision was rendered on February 16, 1982, respondent did not advise the complainant. The complainant learned of the decision only on May 3, 1982, when the sheriff levied and garnished its bank deposit to satisfy the judgment. This forced the complainant to compromise with the other party to lift the garnishment. Respondent admitted being paid but claimed he appeared only upon request of another lawyer, Atty. Orcullo, who assured him the case was up for amicable settlement. He stated he was five minutes late for a hearing, found the case submitted for decision, and was advised by the judge to file a motion for reconsideration. He did not file such motion, explaining the judge indicated a low probability of reconsideration, and he did not notify the complainant because he learned of the decision after the appeal period lapsed while he was in Iloilo.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Olegario Santisteban is administratively liable for negligence and misconduct in handling his client’s case, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The Court agreed with the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant that respondent demonstrated lack of professional competence, diligence, and fidelity to his client’s cause, and was untruthful to the Court. The record showed respondent was the last counsel of record, having appeared at the pre-trial and trial, and billing the complainant for these appearances. As counsel, he was duty-bound to exercise reasonable diligence and competence. His failure to file a motion for reconsideration despite the judge’s instruction constituted negligence. His excuse that the judge advised improbability of reconsideration was without merit, as he should have taken steps to prevent the judgment from becoming final. Worse, he did not inform the complainant of the case status or the adverse decision. His absence in Iloilo without leaving someone to handle urgent matters showed sheer lack of professional sincerity. Even assuming he was not the regular counsel, he should have apprised the regular counsel of developments. His allegations attempting to shift blame were deemed a manifest attempt to deceive the Court. Accordingly, the Court suspended Atty. Olegario Santisteban from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from receipt of the resolution.