G.R. No. A.C. No. 5843; January 14, 2003
Jeno A. Pilapil, complainant, vs. Atty. Gerardo Carillo, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jeno A. Pilapil engaged respondent Atty. Gerardo Carillo as counsel in a labor case against Visayan Electric Company. After receiving an adverse ruling from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in December 1996, they agreed to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Pilapil repeatedly followed up with Atty. Carillo over the next year, reminding him of the 60-day filing period, but the lawyer consistently assured him the petition was being prepared. Atty. Carillo eventually admitted the petition was not filed on time and instructed Pilapil to secure a false medical certificate to justify the delay, which Pilapil could not obtain.
Pilapil subsequently filed a disciplinary complaint for negligence with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline ordered Atty. Carillo to file an answer. Despite receiving the order and even filing a motion for extension, the respondent ultimately failed to submit his answer to the complaint. The complainant then moved to have respondent declared in default and for the case to be resolved based on the pleadings.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Gerardo Carillo is administratively liable for negligence in handling his client’s case and for failing to comply with the orders of the disciplinary authority.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Carillo is administratively liable. The Supreme Court upheld the IBP’s recommendation for a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The legal logic rests on two grounds. First, the respondent’s failure to file the required petition for certiorari within the reglementary period, coupled with his attempt to procure a false justification for the delay, constitutes a clear violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These rules mandate that a lawyer shall serve a client with competence and diligence and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
Second, the respondent’s procedural default before the IBP fortified the finding of negligence. His failure to file an answer to the formal complaint despite notice and opportunity, including a granted extension, is deemed an admission of the allegations therein under Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, applied suppletorily in disbarment proceedings. This stubborn refusal to participate in the investigation, without offering any explanation, corroborates the complainant’s accusations and demonstrates a disregard for judicial and disciplinary processes. The Court found this pattern of neglect in both the entrusted case and the disciplinary proceeding sufficient to warrant suspension.