G.R. No. A.C. No. 5394 December 2, 2002
RIZALINO FERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rizalino Fernandez filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for gross neglect in handling Civil Case No. 7500 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Bacolod City. The complaint alleged that: (1) respondent failed to attend the January 11, 1996 hearing or seek postponement, leading the court to deem him to have waived further evidence presentation and ordering him to formally offer exhibits by January 30, 1996; (2) despite receipt of the order, respondent failed to formally offer exhibits on January 30, 1996, resulting in the dismissal of the case; (3) respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order but did so beyond the reglementary period, leading to its denial; (4) respondent misrepresented to complainant that the motion for reconsideration was pending when it had already been denied; (5) respondent falsely claimed complainant insisted on presenting a witness who had already testified; and (6) respondent attended only one hearing. In his defense, respondent claimed the complaint was unverified and malicious, shifted blame to complainant for failing to provide case records and for attempting to delay the case, and alleged the complaint was a political ploy due to his congressional aspirations. The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended a one-month suspension, while the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors approved.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. should be disciplined for neglect of duty in handling his client’s case, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of neglect of duty. The Court found respondent negligent for failing to formally offer exhibits as ordered, which led to the dismissal of the case, and for filing a motion for reconsideration out of time, making the dismissal final. These acts violated Canon 17 (fidelity to client’s cause) and Canon 18 (competence and diligence), specifically Rule 18.03 (neglect of a legal matter). The Court rejected respondent’s defenses, noting that his inability to obtain case records from complainant highlighted his incompetence, as he could have secured them from the court. The Court also held that the lack of verification in the complaint was a formal defect that did not affect jurisdiction. Considering it was respondent’s first offense, the Court imposed a one-month suspension from the practice of law, with a warning against repetition, aligning with the Office of the Bar Confidant’s recommendation rather than the IBP’s six-month suspension.