AC 12835; (February, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12835, February 03, 2021
Danilo Sanchez, Petitioner, vs. Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez, Respondent.
FACTS
On May 9, 2002, Danilo Sanchez, through his counsel Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Danilo thereafter returned to the United States. On December 10, 2003, the RTC dismissed the complaint due to Atty. Perez’s failure to appear at a pre-trial conference. Although reconsideration was granted and pre-trial was rescheduled twice, Atty. Perez again failed to attend, leading to the case’s dismissal. Danilo requested updates from Atty. Perez but received no response. In October 2008, Danilo’s cousin inquired about the case from Atty. Perez but got no clear answer. They later discovered from the RTC that the case had been dismissed, prompting Danilo to file a disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Atty. Perez denied negligence, claiming diligence, informing Danilo of a desire to withdraw, and sending withdrawal notices and case records to him. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a six-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted. Upon Atty. Perez’s motion, the penalty was reduced to three months. Danilo sought reconsideration, and the IBP Board reinstated the six-month suspension.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through negligence in handling his client’s case and failing to keep the client informed, warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation and suspended Atty. Perez from the practice of law for six months. The Court found that Atty. Perez violated Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His failure to attend the pre-trial conferences, which led to the dismissal of the case, constituted negligence. He also failed to keep his client informed of the case status, leaving the client to discover the dismissal independently. His claim of informing the client of a desire to withdraw did not excuse him, as no proper withdrawal was effected with the court’s permission or client’s written consent. The six-month penalty is consistent with precedents for similar violations of a lawyer’s duties of competence, diligence, and communication.