G.R. No. A.C. No. 11863, August 1, 2023
Evelyn M. Bratschi, Complainant, v. Atty. Robert Y. Peneyra, Respondent.

FACTS

In 1998, complainant Evelyn M. Bratschi engaged respondent Atty. Robert Y. Peneyra as her defense counsel in a criminal case for falsification of a private document pending before the RTC, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City. Bratschi paid Atty. Peneyra an acceptance fee, attorney’s fees, and an amount for her bail bond, the excess of which was not returned. On January 12, 2001, the criminal case was provisionally dismissed but was later revived without objection from Atty. Peneyra. Subsequently, Atty. Peneyra repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings despite due notice. His absences led to the court issuing a warrant for Bratschi’s arrest after she also failed to appear on July 5, 2004, a date of which she was notified through him. Atty. Peneyra later appeared and manifested Bratschi’s waiver of her right to be present, allowing trial in absentia. He again failed to appear on January 26, 2007, for the prosecution’s first witness, and on July 27, 2007, for cross-examination, resulting in a waiver. The RTC, noting his more than eight absences, directed Bratschi to hire a new lawyer and ordered Atty. Peneyra to withdraw, which he did not do. In 2010, he failed to appear for the prosecution’s second and third witnesses, leading to further waivers of cross-examination. He also failed to comment on the prosecution’s formal offer of exhibits, leading to their admission. Despite a final opportunity to present evidence on February 23, 2012, of which he was personally notified, he failed to appear. Bratschi was convicted on August 31, 2012.
In a related civil case for cancellation of title before RTC Branch 95, where Bratschi also engaged Atty. Peneyra, he similarly failed to appear at almost all hearings. His absences contributed to the initial dismissal of the case for lack of interest. After the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, which Atty. Peneyra did not oppose, the case was revived. He failed to conduct cross-examinations and did not oppose the plaintiff’s formal offer of exhibits. A decision was rendered against Bratschi.
Bratschi filed administrative complaints alleging grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Peneyra liable and recommended a one-year suspension and a fine for disregarding IBP orders. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation. Atty. Peneyra did not file a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Did Atty. Peneyra commit gross negligence in repeatedly failing to appear during the hearings, file the necessary motions and pleadings, and present evidence in the two cases in which he was engaged as counsel?

RULING

Yes. The Court found Atty. Peneyra liable for gross negligence and violation of his professional duties. Applying the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which has retroactive application to pending cases, the Court held that Atty. Peneyra violated his fiduciary duties and duties of competence and diligence under Canons III and IV. His repeated, unjustified absences and failure to perform basic legal tasks constituted abandonment of his client’s cause, resulting in material prejudice to Bratschi, including her conviction and an adverse civil judgment. His pattern of neglect demonstrated a conscious indifference to his obligations. Considering the severity of the violations and the fact that Atty. Peneyra had been previously suspended for professional misconduct, the Court deemed the recommended one-year suspension insufficient. Instead, the ultimate penalty of disbarment was imposed. Atty. Robert Y. Peneyra is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.