A.C. No. 5279, September 8, 2020
Romeo Telles, Complainant, vs. Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Romeo Telles engaged respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel as counsel for an action for Annulment of a Deed of Quitclaim. After losing in the trial court, Atty. Dancel handled the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Despite being granted four motions for extension totaling 75 days, Atty. Dancel failed to file the required appellant’s brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. He did not inform Telles of this dismissal. Telles also discovered that Atty. Dancel had filed the Formal Offer of Evidence in the trial court 88 days late, leading to its denial.
Upon the filing of this disbarment complaint for gross negligence, the Supreme Court repeatedly ordered Atty. Dancel to file his Comment. He ignored multiple directives over many years, leading the Court to impose fines and even issue an arrest order. He finally filed a one-page Comment in 2015, attributing his failure to illness and claiming the parties had reached a compromise. He also noted Telles had died in 2000.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Dancel is administratively liable and is hereby DISBARRED. The Court found he violated his duties to his client and to the Court under the Code of Professional Responsibility. His failure to file the appellant’s brief despite multiple extensions, and his concealment of the appeal’s dismissal from his client, constitute gross negligence and a breach of Rule 12.03 (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him) and Rule 18.04 (a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of the case). This negligence directly caused the dismissal of his client’s appeal, causing grave prejudice.
Furthermore, his protracted defiance of the Supreme Court’s lawful orders to file his Comment—spanning 15 years and requiring the imposition of fines and an arrest order—demonstrates utter disrespect for judicial authority and underscores a recalcitrant character unfit for the legal profession. His belated excuses of illness and compromise were unsupported by evidence and did not absolve him. The death of the complainant does not extinguish the administrative proceeding, as its purpose is to protect the public and the integrity of the bar. Given the gravity of his compounded violations—gross negligence toward his client and willful disobedience to the Court—the ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted to safeguard the public and the legal system.