G.R. No. A.C. No. 10138; June 16, 2015
ROBERTO P. NONATO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EUTIQUIO M. FUDOLIN, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Roberto P. Nonato charged respondent Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. with gross neglect of duty. The complaint stemmed from the respondent’s handling of an ejectment case (Civil Case No. MTC-282) filed by the complainant’s late father, Restituto Nonato, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The respondent was engaged as counsel after the pre-trial stage. The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to fully inform his father of the case’s status and developments, failed to furnish copies of pleadings, and could not be contacted. The MTC ordered the parties to submit position papers. The respondent failed to file the required position paper, leading the MTC to dismiss the ejectment complaint on May 26, 2005. The respondent filed motions for reconsideration, justifying his failure by stating he misplaced the case records and was burdened with other cases, but these were denied. Restituto Nonato died on September 15, 2005. The complainant claimed he and his father were unaware of the dismissal and the subsequent motions, learning of it only from the MTC Clerk of Court. The respondent, in his defense, claimed his failure was due to poor health, including an undetected stroke, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus type II, which caused loss of concentration and case records. He also claimed he did not disclose his illness to avoid affecting his practice. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of negligence and betrayal of client confidence, recommending a one-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors approved.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent could be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of duty.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 17, Canon 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court ruled that a lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause and must serve with competence and diligence. The respondent’s failure to file the required position paper, which led to the dismissal of the ejectment case, and his failure to keep the client informed of the case status constituted inexcusable negligence and evasion of duty. The Court rejected the respondent’s health-based excuses as unsatisfactory and an afterthought, noting that his subsequent filing of pleadings after the dismissal contradicted his claim of being incapacitated. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, imposing a suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years, considering the gravity of the infractions and the prejudice caused to the client. The respondent was also warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.