A.C. No. 5169. November 24, 1999.
ELMO S. MOTON, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAYMUNDO D. CADIAO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elmo S. Moton engaged Atty. Raymundo D. Cadiao as counsel in a civil case for “Right to Use Urban Land and Damages” filed in 1987. The case suffered significant delays due to respondent’s repeated failures to attend court hearings. On August 14, 1990, Atty. Cadiao’s non-appearance at a pre-trial conference led to the dismissal of the case. Although he secured a reconsideration, further delays ensued. On August 13, 1991, a crucial hearing for the reception of evidence was scheduled. Prior to this, Atty. Cadiao filed a motion to reset this hearing, citing a conflicting schedule in Antique. He left for Antique before the hearing on his motion, resulting in its denial. His subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied.
The procedural delays culminated in the trial court dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. Atty. Cadiao then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for lack of merit. Subsequently, he withdrew his appearance as counsel, prompting Moton to file this disbarment complaint for negligence.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Raymundo D. Cadiao violated his professional duties through negligence in handling his client’s case.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Cadiao is administratively liable for negligence. The Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline. Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Negligence is measured by the lawyer’s failure to exercise reasonable care and diligence expected of a member of the Bar.
The legal logic is clear: by accepting a case, a lawyer undertakes a duty to handle it with competence, dedication, and reasonable promptness. Atty. Cadiao’s pattern of conduct—missing the initial pre-trial causing dismissal, and then prioritizing another case in Antique which led to the denial of a resetting and the ultimate dismissal for failure to prosecute—demonstrates a failure to manage his caseload and prioritize court schedules effectively. His defense that the client failed to furnish original evidence does not absolve him; a diligent lawyer should have managed discovery and evidence presentation proactively without causing undue delay. His actions caused actual prejudice to his client, who lost his cause of action due to the dismissal. The Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 with a stern warning, emphasizing that a lawyer’s primary duty is to serve the client’s cause with wholehearted fidelity.