AC 8367; (August, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 8367, August 01, 2023
Estrella Peralta-Diasen, Complainant, vs. Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, Respondent.
FACTS
In 2002, complainant Estrella Peralta-Diasen engaged the services of respondent Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto to file and prosecute two civil cases (Civil Case Nos. TG-2471 and TG-2472) before the RTC of Tagaytay City. Complainant paid acceptance and legal fees totaling over P106,000.00 from 2002 to 2008. In April 2008, complainant inquired about the cases’ progress but received only vague assurances from respondent. In June 2009, complainant discovered through a direct inquiry at the RTC that both cases had been dismissed in 2005 and 2007, respectively, for failure to prosecute. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Despite being granted extensions and after being fined for non-compliance, respondent failed to file his comment or any responsive pleading to the complaint. The case was referred to the IBP, which recommended a four-year suspension and a fine. The Court noted respondent’s prior administrative infractions: a six-month suspension in 2004 for misleading a client about filing a case, and a two-year suspension in 2010 for various violations including ignoring Court orders.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto should be held administratively liable for his actions in handling the complainant’s cases and for his failure to comply with the Court’s orders.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent GUILTY of gross negligence in the performance of duty and willful disobedience of a Court order under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). Respondent neglected the litigation of the cases, resulting in their dismissal for failure to prosecute, failed to apprise complainant of the cases’ status, and knowingly received legal fees after the dismissals. His prior administrative infractions were considered aggravating circumstances. For the gross negligence, a serious offense, and considering his record of unrepentant misconduct, the penalty of DISBARMENT was imposed. For his willful disobedience of the Court’s order to file a comment, a separate less serious offense, a FINE of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00) was imposed. Respondent’s name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.