G.R. No. A.C. 6597. September 23, 2005
Eduardo M. Dizon, Complainant, vs. Atty. Francisco S. Laurente, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Eduardo M. Dizon engaged the services of respondent Atty. Francisco S. Laurente to handle three pending cases, including a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP-66087. Complainant, who was leaving for the United States for medical reasons, agreed with respondent to maintain regular communication regarding case updates. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition via a Resolution dated October 1, 2001, finding the remedy inappropriate. Respondent received the notice of this dismissal on October 10, 2001, but failed to file a motion for reconsideration or take any protective action. Consequently, the Resolution became final and executory, leading to the issuance of a Writ of Possession and the eventual eviction of complainant and his family from their condominium unit. Complainant, unaware of the dismissal while abroad, later inquired with respondent, who falsely claimed he had not received any notice. Upon returning to the Philippines and discovering the adverse ruling, complainant found that respondent avoided him.
Regarding a separate CIAC case, complainant alleged respondent failed to draft a reply letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines as agreed. Respondent countered that the letter was properly addressed to a sheriff, not to him, and that he had prepared a reply for the sheriff. For the criminal case, no specific allegations were detailed in the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Francisco S. Laurente violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through negligence and misconduct in handling his client’s cases.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence. The legal logic centers on the fundamental duty of a lawyer to protect the client’s interests with utmost care. In the CA-G.R. SP-66087 case, respondent committed a grievous error by filing an inappropriate petition for certiorari, demonstrating a lack of basic legal diligence. More egregiously, upon receiving the notice of dismissal, his failure to move for reconsideration or take any remedial step constituted abandonment of his client’s cause, directly leading to the finality of the adverse judgment and the client’s severe prejudice, including loss of property. His subsequent act of misleading the client about the case status compounded the violation, breaching the trust inherent in the attorney-client relationship.
The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty persists until the termination of the case, and respondent’s inaction and deception fell far short of the required standard of professional conduct. Regarding the CIAC case, the Court found respondent’s explanation satisfactory, as the evidence did not clearly establish an agreement for him to answer the bank letter personally. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors’ modified recommendation was adopted. Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be met with a more severe penalty.