G.R. No. A.C. No. 4282; August 24, 2000
Teodulfo B. Basas, complainant, vs. Atty. Miguel I. Icawat, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Teodulfo Basas and co-workers engaged respondent Atty. Miguel Icawat to handle their illegal dismissal cases against their employer. The Labor Arbiter ruled partly in favor of the employer but ordered payment of certain monetary claims. The workers instructed respondent to appeal the decision.
Respondent filed a mere notice of appeal but failed to submit the required memorandum of appeal under NLRC rules, leading to the appeal’s imperfection. When the clients, sensing his inaction, asked him to withdraw, he refused and allegedly threatened to sue them. Furthermore, complainant alleged that respondent issued a receipt for only P180.00 out of the P280.00 given for filing fees.

ISSUE

Whether respondent lawyer is administratively liable for professional negligence and misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings. Rule VI, Section 3(a) of the NLRC Rules explicitly requires a memorandum of appeal to perfect an appeal; a mere notice of appeal is insufficient. Respondent’s failure to file this essential pleading constituted gross negligence, demonstrating a poor grasp of procedure and directly prejudicing his clients’ interests. This violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which mandate competence, diligence, and prohibit neglect of a legal matter.
Regarding the monetary issue, respondent violated Rule 16.01 of the CPR, which requires a lawyer to account for all money received from a client. His issuance of an incomplete receipt, regardless of his personal view on the sufficiency of the fee, breached this fiduciary duty. The Court imposed a fine of P500.00 with a stern warning against repetition.