AC 12875; (January, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12875, January 26, 2021
Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr., Complainant, vs. Atty. Jerry R. Centro, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Jerry R. Centro was the counsel for complainant Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr. in a civil case pending before the RTC of Surigao City. The parties were required to file memoranda. Atty. Centro informed Portuguese that the memorandum had been filed. However, on January 25, 2018, Portuguese was shocked to be served a Notice and Writ of Execution, which was the first time he learned of a judgment in the case. Portuguese alleged that Atty. Centro had received a copy of the RTC’s July 10, 2017 Decision on August 10, 2017, but never advised him about it. Atty. Centro did not file any pleading to appeal or question the Decision. Portuguese also discovered that Atty. Centro did not actually file the promised Memorandum. Furthermore, Atty. Centro failed to: contest the Motion for Execution; notify Portuguese of the hearing on said Motion; and inform him of the resolution granting the Motion. Atty. Centro also failed to file his Answer to the administrative complaint despite notice.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Jerry R. Centro is administratively liable for gross negligence, abandonment, and dereliction of duty, violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Jerry R. Centro is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to suspend him from the practice of law for three (3) years. The Court found that Atty. Centro committed the following acts: 1) failing to file a Memorandum and misrepresenting its filing; 2) failing to inform Portuguese of the RTC’s adverse Decision; 3) failing to protect Portuguese’s interest against said Decision; 4) failing to inform Portuguese of the Motion for Execution, its hearing, and the resolution granting it; and 5) failing to file an Answer to the administrative complaint. These acts constituted unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of his client’s cause, violating the Lawyer’s Oath and specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Canon 11, Rule 12.03, Canon 17, Canon 18, Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04. His disregard for lawful orders and established processes demonstrated indifference and disrespect. The three-year suspension was deemed a fitting penalty for the damage caused.