AC 13466; (January, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 13466 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5156). January 11, 2023.
MARICEL H. ARTATES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant Maricel H. Artates engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello to represent her in an illegal dismissal case before the Labor Arbiter. Respondent represented her in a conciliation conference and submitted her position paper and reply. Complainant alleged that respondent never informed her of the unfavorable decision dismissing her case on September 29, 2015. After months of unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent, complainant discovered the dismissal herself. She hired a new lawyer to file an appeal, but it was dismissed for being filed out of time. Complainant filed an administrative complaint, faulting respondent’s negligence for the dismissal. Respondent denied the charges, claiming he informed a certain “Reiner Cunanan,” complainant’s focal person, of the decision, and was told that Cunanan could no longer contact complainant. Respondent also claimed he provided legal assistance without charging attorney’s fees, requesting only reimbursement for gasoline expenses.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent should be administratively liable for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found that a lawyer-client relationship existed. Respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to inform complainant of the unfavorable decision, which caused material damage as it precluded her from perfecting a timely appeal. This failure constitutes a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 17 (fidelity to the client’s cause), and Rules 18.03 (prohibition against neglecting a legal matter) and 18.04 (duty to keep the client informed) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The fact that respondent did not accept attorney’s fees does not negate his liability. Following precedents for similar neglect, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.