AC 5732; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 5732; June 16, 2015
ALFREDO C. OLVIDA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNEL C. GONZALES, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Alfredo C. Olvida engaged the services of respondent Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales in November 2000 to handle a case for Termination of Tenancy Relationship before the DARAB in Davao City. The complainant paid an acceptance fee and provided all necessary documentary evidence to the respondent for the preparation of a position paper, which the DARAB required to be submitted within 40 days from a hearing on February 21, 2001. Despite repeated follow-ups by the complainant, the respondent failed to file the position paper by the April 25, 2001 deadline. The respondent’s secretary even misinformed the complainant that the position paper had been filed. The complainant discovered the non-filing only upon receiving the DARAB decision on December 13, 2001, which dismissed the case for lack of merit, explicitly noting the respondent’s failure to submit the position paper. The complainant also learned that the respondent had received a copy of the adverse decision earlier but did not inform him. The complainant terminated the respondent’s services. In the ensuing administrative case, the respondent failed to timely file his comment despite several extensions and Court directives over seven years, leading to a fine for non-compliance. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended a four-month suspension.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales is administratively liable for professional negligence and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that the respondent grossly violated Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He failed to file the required position paper, neglected to keep the client informed about the case status, and acted dishonestly by not communicating the adverse decision he received. His negligence directly prejudiced the client’s case, causing dismissal. The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause and must serve with competence and diligence. The respondent’s attempts to shift blame were unavailing. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, imposing a SUSPENSION from the practice of law for three (3) years, with a warning against repetition. The respondent was also directed to manifest the date of receipt of the decision to start his suspension and to inform all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he appears as counsel.