AC 6295; (April, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. 6295; April 14, 2004
Josefina B. Fajardo, complainant, vs. Atty. Danilo Dela Torre, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Josefina Fajardo was the client of respondent Atty. Danilo Dela Torre in consolidated ejectment cases. After an adverse decision from the Regional Trial Court, she instructed the respondent to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals and remitted P4,300.00 for this purpose. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to insufficient payment of docket fees and failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed decision. The complainant only discovered this dismissal when her opponent filed a copy of the resolution in a separate case.
Subsequently, the complainant filed a disciplinary complaint for gross ignorance of the law and negligence. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) directed the respondent to answer the complaint and later set the case for hearing. Despite receiving these orders and notices, the respondent failed to file an answer or appear at the scheduled hearing. The IBP-CBD proceeded with an ex parte investigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Danilo Dela Torre is administratively liable for professional negligence and for his failure to participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s finding of negligence but modified the penalty. The respondent’s failure to ensure proper payment of docket fees and to attach the required certified copy of the decision constituted a clear breach of his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, as mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility. This negligence directly caused the dismissal of his client’s appeal.
Furthermore, the respondent’s willful disregard of the IBP-CBD’s lawful orders—by not filing an answer and not appearing at hearings despite notice—demonstrated contemptuous conduct and a disrespect for the disciplinary authority of the Court and the IBP. This failure to comply with procedural directives compounded his professional misconduct. While the IBP Board of Governors recommended a one-month suspension, the Supreme Court found this penalty inadequate. Considering the twin violations of negligence towards his client and contumacy towards the disciplinary process, the Court imposed a heavier penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.