G.R. No. A.C. No. 5116. April 13, 2015
DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Complainant, vs. ATTY. JOHNNY LANDERO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Davao Import Distributors, Inc., through its manager Jimmy Pandili, engaged the services of respondent Atty. Johnny Landero to file a complaint for replevin and damages against Angelita Librando and Juanito Du (Civil Case No. 3854) before the MTCC of General Santos City. The case involved a split-type air-conditioner purchased on installment by Librando, which was found in her closed salon located in a building owned by Du, who refused to release it.
On the scheduled pre-trial date, respondent failed to appear and did not inform complainant. Consequently, the MTCC dismissed the complaint for non-suit and allowed Du to present evidence ex-parte on his counterclaim. The MTCC later rendered a decision ordering complainant to pay Du moral damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. Complainant appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MTCC decision.
Complainant then gave respondent ₱1,900.00 to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Respondent filed a motion for extension but ultimately failed to file the petition, leading the CA to dismiss the appeal.
In his defense, respondent claimed that after discovering the subject property had been attached by a sheriff in another case, he and Pandili agreed to abandon the case. He alleged that Pandili later panicked about possible job termination and requested delays and appeals. Respondent stated he filed the motion for extension out of pity, but after Du’s counsel opposed it by alleging respondent misled the CA on the date of receipt of the decision, he chose not to file the petition to avoid wasting the court’s time on a baseless and tardy appeal.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent negligent and recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this but increased the suspension to six months.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Johnny Landero is administratively liable for professional misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution, suspending respondent from the practice of law for six months.
The Court found that respondent committed acts constituting misconduct and violations of Canons 12 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His deliberate failure to attend the pre-trial conference, despite notice and despite being aware that his absence would lead to a dismissal with prejudice and a default judgment on the counterclaim, constituted gross negligence. This failure curtailed complainant’s right to refile the case and to present evidence against the counterclaim. Even assuming an agreement with his client to abandon the case, his duty was to formally move for its withdrawal in court, especially since a counterclaim had been pleaded, as required under Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, his failure to file the petition for review after receiving payment for docket fees and after being granted an extension by the CA demonstrated a lack of diligence and respect for judicial processes. His explanation that he did not want to waste the court’s time was unacceptable and underscored a violation of Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the CPR, which mandates a lawyer to assist in the speedy administration of justice.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer has a duty to serve his client with competence, diligence, and utmost dedication, and to uphold the integrity of the courts. Respondent’s actions fell short of these standards.