A.C. No. 10945, February 23, 2016
Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame vs. Atty. Edgar S. Orro

FACTS

Complainants Spouses Ramiscal engaged respondent Atty. Edgar S. Orro to represent them in a land title nullity case. After receiving an acceptance fee and securing a favorable RTC decision, the adverse party appealed to the Court of Appeals. The respondent requested and received P30,000 from the complainants to prepare the appellee’s brief. The CA later reversed the RTC decision. The respondent failed to inform the complainants of this adverse ruling, which they learned of from neighbors. Upon finally contacting him, he requested an additional P7,000 to file a motion for reconsideration, which they paid, despite his warning it might be belated.
The complainants later discovered the respondent never filed the promised motion for reconsideration, causing the CA decision to attain finality and resulting in the loss of their 8.479-hectare property. They filed an administrative complaint. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated, and despite notices, neither party appeared. The IBP Board of Governors found the respondent liable and recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Edgar S. Orro violated his professional and ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. The lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary, demanding competence, diligence, and fidelity. The Court found the respondent violated Canon 17 (fidelity to the client’s cause) and Rules 18.03 (neglect of a legal matter) and 18.04 (duty to keep the client informed) of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
His failure to inform the complainants of the adverse CA decision was a direct breach of his duty to keep them updated, depriving them of the opportunity to seek alternative remedies. His acceptance of payment specifically for filing a motion for reconsideration, which he then neglected to file, constituted gross negligence and a betrayal of the trust reposed in him. This neglect directly led to the finality of the judgment and the loss of his clients’ property. His disregard of IBP notices further demonstrated a lack of respect for the disciplinary authorities. The Court affirmed the IBP’s modified penalty, imposing a two-year suspension as a condign and proportionate sanction for his aggravated misconduct, which was more severe than the typical six-month suspension for similar violations due to the substantial prejudice caused and his defiant attitude.