AC 5085; (February, 2003) (Digest)
A.C. No. 5085 ; February 6, 2003
Pablito Santos, complainant, vs. Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Pablito Santos engaged respondent Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro as his counsel in an ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Despite complainant paying substantial acceptance and additional fees, the MeTC ruled against him, ordering his eviction and payment of back rentals. Complainant appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC issued an order directing the filing of an appellant’s memorandum within thirty days. Respondent failed to file this mandatory memorandum.
The RTC subsequently granted the opposing party’s motion for a writ of execution, noting the failure to file the memorandum and the absence of a supersedeas bond. The court explicitly found respondent’s excuse—that his attention was focused on other pleadings—to be a “feeble attempt to extricate himself from his blunder which is not excusable.” This failure led to the execution of the judgment and the demolition of complainant’s home.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro is administratively liable for negligence in handling his client’s case.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of gross negligence. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the RTC, emphasizing that a lawyer’s duty to a client includes the exercise of due diligence. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly holds lawyers liable for negligence in matters entrusted to them.
The legal logic is clear: by accepting a client’s cause, a lawyer covenants to protect the client’s rights with the vigilance expected of a good father of a family. Respondent’s failure to file the required appellate memorandum, a fundamental procedural step, constituted a breach of this duty. His proffered excuse was deemed ludicrous and inexcusable by both the RTC and the Supreme Court. This neglect set off a direct chain of events causing material prejudice to the client, specifically the loss of his home through execution. The standard of care was not met.
Consequently, the Court found respondent guilty of violating basic professional ethics. While the IBP recommended a six-month suspension, the Court imposed a stricter penalty of one-year suspension from the practice of law, considering the gravity of the negligence and the severe prejudice suffered by the client.