G.R. No. A.C. No. 10254, March 09, 2020
Adela H. Violago, Complainant, v. Atty. Bonifacio F. Aranjuez, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Adela H. Violago, a member of the E. Quiogue Extension Neighborhood Association, was a defendant in an ejectment case where respondent Atty. Bonifacio F. Aranjuez, Jr. represented the Association. The case was lost in the lower courts. Respondent filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals on behalf of the Association. Complainant alleged she was not informed of the status and later discovered the petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on July 25, 2013, due to several fatal defects. These defects included: failure to attach necessary pleadings; defective Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping (non-compliance with notarial rules, lack of authority for some signatures, and identity documents); discrepancy in a petitioner’s name in the caption; counsel’s failure to indicate MCLE compliance details; and inconsistency in the affidavit of service regarding mode of filing. Complainant claimed respondent was negligent for these basic errors. She and another member resigned from the Association, requested respondent to formally withdraw as counsel, and, alleging no action on the request, filed this administrative case seeking his withdrawal. Respondent countered that he handled the case pro bono, coordinated with Association officers, and had not personally met complainant except when she requested withdrawal, to which he responded by filing a formal withdrawal noted by the Supreme Court. He denied negligence, citing his efforts from trial court to Supreme Court, including filing an Omnibus Motion to remedy the petition’s defects and a subsequent Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals denied the motion. He also claimed his efforts prevented complainant’s eviction and led to an amicable settlement, which complainant had previously acknowledged.

ISSUE

Whether respondent should be administratively disciplined for negligence in handling the ejectment case on behalf of complainant.

RULING

Yes, but the penalty is modified. The Court found respondent administratively liable for negligence. The Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence and not neglect a legal matter. While the Court does not review the propriety of the appellate dismissal, the material defects in the Petition for Review—which were basic and procedural—constituted a failure to exercise the required diligence. A lawyer’s duty applies regardless of whether the service is pro bono. However, for administrative liability under Canon 18, the negligence must be gross and inexcusable, causing highly prejudicial results. The Court considered mitigating circumstances: respondent attempted to remedy the defects via an Omnibus Motion, continued to pursue the case up to the Supreme Court, and his prior efforts were recognized by complainant as having prevented her eviction. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors recommended a six-month suspension. The Supreme Court modified this penalty, holding that under the circumstances, a reprimand with a stern warning was sufficient. Respondent was ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.