G.R. No. A.C. No. 11828. November 22, 2017. SPOUSES VICENTE and PRECYWINDA GIMENA, Complainants, vs. ATTY. JOJO S. VIJIGA, Respondent.
FACTS

The complainants hired respondent Atty. Jojo S. Vijiga to represent them in a civil case for nullity of foreclosure proceedings. After the Regional Trial Court dismissed their case, they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA required the filing of an appellant’s brief. Respondent failed to file it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The CA later granted his motion for reconsideration, reinstated the appeal, and gave a new 15-day period to file the brief. Respondent again failed to file it, resulting in the final dismissal of the appeal. The complainants alleged they were never updated on the case status and only discovered the dismissal when a bulldozer entered their property. Respondent denied neglect, claiming he spoke with complainant Vicente, who allegedly instructed him not to pursue the appeal because the bank already possessed the properties.

ISSUE

Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a lawyer in his dealings with the complainants?

RULING

Yes, the respondent violated his ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for six months. The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary and confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship. Canon 17 requires fidelity to the client’s cause, while Canon 18 mandates service with competence and diligence. Specifically, Rule 18.03 prohibits neglect of a legal matter, and Rule 18.04 requires a lawyer to keep the client informed of the case status.
The respondent’s repeated failure to file the mandatory appellant’s brief, despite being granted an extension, constitutes gross negligence and a dereliction of duty. This failure directly caused the final dismissal of the complainants’ appeal, prejudicing their substantial rights. Furthermore, his claim that the client instructed him to abandon the appeal was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the complainants’ consistent efforts to pursue their case. His failure to communicate the critical developments, including the dismissal orders, violated the fundamental duty of keeping the client reasonably informed. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer is not a guarantor of victory, he is bound to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence, and to maintain open communication. The six-month suspension serves to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to assure the public that transgressions by officers of the court are met with commensurate penalties.