G.R. No. A.C. No. 5044; December 2, 2013
Felipe C. Dagala, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. and Atty. Amado T. Adquilen, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Felipe C. Dagala engaged the services of Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr., who filed a labor complaint for illegal dismissal and other claims (NLRC Case No. RAB-I-1??1123-94) on November 8, 1994. The case was dismissed without prejudice on December 13, 1994, due to the failure of both complainant and Atty. Quesada to appear at scheduled mandatory conferences despite notice. Complainant then engaged Atty. Amado T. Adquilen, who re-filed the case (NLRC Case No. RAB-I-10-1091-95). This second case was dismissed without prejudice on June 28, 1996, due to the parties’ failure to submit position papers. Atty. Adquilen re-filed the case a third time (NLRC Case No. RAB-I-08-1191-96). During its pendency, the opposing party offered a settlement of ₱74,000.00, conditioned on the submission of complainant’s position paper. Atty. Adquilen failed to submit the position paper, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of interest and failure to prosecute per an Order dated February 27, 1997. A motion for reconsideration, filed by a new counsel, Atty. Imelda L. Picar, was dismissed by the NLRC on June 17, 1998, for being filed out of time, with the NLRC noting that the negligence of counsel binds the client.
Atty. Picar sent letters to both respondents about a potential administrative complaint. Only Atty. Quesada responded and, through a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 5, 1998, undertook to compensate complainant for damages in consideration of not filing a complaint. Atty. Quesada reneged on this promise, prompting the filing of the present administrative case. During the proceedings, Atty. Adquilen failed to comply with court directives to comment and was fined. Atty. Quesada, in his Comment, admitted filing the initial case but claimed he could not submit a position paper due to complainant’s failure to provide documents. He also claimed he signed the Memorandum of Agreement under pressure and could not raise the agreed amount. The case was referred to the IBP, which found both respondents grossly negligent and recommended a one-year suspension for each, and for them to pay complainant a total of ₱74,000.00. The IBP Board of Governors approved this in Resolution No. XX-2011-262. Subsequently, it was confirmed that Atty. Adquilen had died on June 22, 2008.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in handling complainant’s labor case.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. is administratively liable for gross negligence. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but deleted the recommended order for the payment of ₱74,000.00, as the determination of civil liability for negligence in a lawyer-client engagement is more appropriate for a separate civil action.
The Court emphasized that the lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary, requiring lawyers to serve with competence and diligence under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Rule 18.03 specifically prohibits a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. Atty. Quesada’s failure to appear at the mandatory conferences, which led directly to the dismissal of his client’s case, constituted a clear neglect of duty. His excuse—that the client failed to provide documents—does not absolve him; a diligent lawyer should have taken steps to secure the necessary evidence or properly withdraw from the case if the client was uncooperative. His subsequent denial of a lawyer-client relationship during the IBP proceedings contradicted his earlier admission and demonstrated dishonesty, violating Rule 1.01 (prohibiting deceitful conduct) and Rule 10.01 (prohibiting falsehoods to the court) of the CPR.
The Court held that Atty. Quesada violated his duties of fidelity (Canon 17), competence and diligence (Canon 18 and Rule 18.03), and candor and good faith (Canon 10 and Rule 10.01). Considering the negligence and the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year on Atty. Quesada. The case against Atty. Adquilen was dismissed due to his prior death, as administrative liabilities of a punitive nature do not survive the death of the respondent.