AC 4646; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4646; April 6, 2000
ROSITA S. TORRES, complainant, vs. ATTY. AMADO D. ORDEN, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rosita S. Torres engaged respondent Atty. Amado D. Orden to represent her in a recovery of possession case. The Regional Trial Court ruled in her favor, but the adverse parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. Respondent lawyer failed to file the required appellee’s brief before the appellate court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals decided the case without it and reversed the trial court’s decision in favor of the opposing spouses.
Respondent then filed a Notice of Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. However, he never filed the actual Petition for Review within the reglementary period. The Supreme Court thus declared the Court of Appeals decision final and executory. Complainant filed this administrative case, alleging respondent neglected his duties despite receiving payment for fees and expenses.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Amado D. Orden should be held administratively liable for professional negligence.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation for a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The legal logic is grounded in the fundamental duties of a lawyer to the client, the court, and the profession.
A lawyer is bound to serve the client with competence, diligence, and utmost fidelity. Respondent’s failure to file the appellee’s brief with the Court of Appeals constituted gross negligence, as appellate courts heavily rely on such briefs when reviewing cases. This omission alone was a severe dereliction of duty that prejudiced the client’s cause. His subsequent failure to file the Petition for Review with the Supreme Court after giving notice compounded his negligence, demonstrating a pattern of incompetence and disregard for procedural rules.
The Court rejected respondent’s excuse of ignorance of appellate procedure. A lawyer is presumed to know the rules of procedure and must keep abreast of legal developments. Professing ignorance is inexcusable and itself a violation of the duty to maintain competence. His actions betrayed a lack of honesty to his client and the courts. Such conduct falls short of the circumspection, prudence, and fealty required of every member of the Bar, warranting disciplinary sanction to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.