G.R. No. A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016
IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. CV No. 94656, vs. ATTY. GIDEON D.V. MORTEL, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel was the counsel for Angelita De Jesus in a case before the Court of Appeals (CA). After moving offices, he requested to use the address of his friend’s law firm, MFV Jose Law Office, as his address on record. The CA issued a Notice on July 20, 2010, for him to file an appellant’s brief. Instead of complying, Atty. Mortel filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal on August 16, 2010, believing the case was settled. The CA, in a Resolution dated September 20, 2010, directed him to submit his client’s written conformity to the motion. Atty. Mortel did not comply. The CA issued multiple subsequent Resolutions (dated November 11, 2010; February 23, 2011; March 28, 2011; July 5, 2011; October 13, 2011; January 10, 2012) ordering him to comply with the earlier directive, furnish his client’s address, and show cause. Atty. Mortel ignored all these Resolutions. On May 16, 2012, the CA found him liable for indirect contempt and fined him ₱10,000. He did not pay the fine. Further Resolutions (August 13, 2012; October 17, 2012; April 26, 2013) were issued, which he also ignored. Atty. Mortel claimed he never received these Resolutions because the messenger of MFV Jose Law Office, who received them, failed to forward them after his own messenger ceased communication. The CA, in its Resolution dated August 14, 2013, suspended Atty. Mortel from the practice of law for six months for disobedience of lawful orders, gross misconduct, and disrespect. This Resolution was forwarded to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel should be imposed a disciplinary sanction.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals. Lawyers have a duty to keep the courts informed of their current address and to monitor the status of their cases. Atty. Mortel’s failure to receive the court notices was due to his own negligence in arranging an unreliable system for receiving his mail and in failing to diligently follow up on his case after filing the Motion to Withdraw Appeal. His belief that the motion did not require client conformity was a mistake of law, which is not an excuse. His repeated and willful disobedience of the CA’s lawful orders constituted gross misconduct, violation of his oath, and disrespect toward the court. The Supreme Court modified the penalty, considering his eventual (though belated) compliance and expression of remorse. Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) MONTHS, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. He was also ORDERED to pay the ₱10,000 fine imposed by the CA within ten days.