AC 5554; (June, 2004) (Digest)
A.C. No. 5554, June 29, 2004
Luis de Guzman, represented by his son Rodrigo C. de Guzman, complainant, vs. Atty. Emmanuel M. Basa, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Luis de Guzman was the defendant in a civil case for rescission and recovery of possession. His counsel, respondent Atty. Emmanuel M. Basa, agreed to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging an adverse trial court order, for which he received a partial payment of ₱5,000. Respondent, however, never filed the agreed petition. Subsequently, after the trial court rendered a decision against complainant, respondent handled the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Despite being granted multiple extensions to file the appellant’s brief, respondent failed to submit it within the final extended period, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the brief. Respondent’s attempt to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review also failed due to an initial lack of a proper certification of non-forum shopping.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Emmanuel M. Basa should be held administratively liable for his professional conduct in handling complainant’s case.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable for gross negligence and misconduct. The Supreme Court sustained the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ finding that respondent violated his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 18 requires a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence. Specifically, Rule 18.03 prohibits neglect of a legal matter, and Rule 12.03 forbids letting extended periods for filing pleadings lapse without submission or explanation. Respondent’s failure to file the promised petition for certiorari after accepting payment, and his gross negligence in causing the dismissal of the appeal by not filing the appellant’s brief despite several extensions, constituted a blatant disregard for his professional obligations and his lawyer’s oath. This negligence deprived complainant of his right to appellate review on the merits. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to provide diligent and competent service is paramount, regardless of whether the engagement is for a fee or pro bono. Accordingly, respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law and ordering the return of the ₱5,000 to complainant’s heirs, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.