G.R. No. A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015
REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Reynaldo Ramirez engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo for a civil case for Quieting of Title. The Regional Trial Court rendered an adverse decision on October 19, 2006. Atty. Margallo advised an appeal and committed to file it. The appeal was perfected and the records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals, which directed the filing of an Appellant’s Brief on December 5, 2008. Ramirez notified Atty. Margallo, who said she would prepare it. On January 8, 2009, Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez he needed to sign documents for the brief. On several follow-ups, Ramirez was told there was no word from the Court of Appeals. On August 26, 2009, Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez his appeal had been denied, stating the denial was on the merits due to his failure to establish filiation. She said they could no longer appeal as the reglementary period had lapsed. Ramirez discovered at the Court of Appeals that the Appellant’s Brief was filed only on April 13, 2009, with a motion for reconsideration and apologies for late filing. Atty. Margallo claimed she took the case for free except for travel expenses, denied a contingent fee agreement, and stated her failure to inform Ramirez of the adverse decision was because her daughter accidentally erased her phone contacts. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Atty. Margallo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo violated her professional duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied Atty. Margallo’s Petition for Review and affirmed the IBP’s recommendation. The Court found she violated Canon 17 (fidelity to client’s cause) and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 (duty not to neglect a legal matter) and 18.04 (duty to keep client informed) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her inaction resulted in the late filing of the Appellant’s Brief, causing the dismissal of her client’s appeal not on the merits but due to her negligence. She failed to exhaust all means to protect her client’s interest and was not candid with him about the real reason for the dismissal. Her excuses for lack of communication were unacceptable. The lawyer-client relationship demands utmost diligence and competence regardless of whether the case is paid or pro bono. The Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law with a stern warning.