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, and respondent agreed to communicate regularly 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. Complainant, unaware of these developments while abroad, later inquired with respondent, who falsely claimed he had not received any notice. Upon returning to the Philippines and discovering the truth, complainant confronted respondent, who avoided him.
Regarding a separate CIAC case, complainant alleged respondent failed to draft a requested reply to a Land Bank letter. Respondent countered that the letter was properly addressed to a sheriff and that he had, in fact, prepared a reply for that official. For the criminal case, no specific allegations of negligence were detailed in the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Francisco S. Laurente violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through negligence in handling his client’s case, particularly CA-G.R. SP-66087.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty includes the exercise of reasonable care and skill, and the adoption of legally proper remedies to protect a client’s interests.
The legal logic is clear: respondent committed gross negligence by failing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ adverse Resolution, an omission which was not a mere error in judgment but a neglect of a fundamental procedural step that directly caused the finality of the judgment and severe prejudice to the client. His subsequent failure to inform the complainant of the dismissal, coupled with providing false information when asked, constituted abandonment and deceit, further aggravating the violation. This pattern of conduct demonstrated a breach of the fiduciary duty of candor and diligence owed to a client. The Court found respondent’s explanations for his inaction unsatisfactory and unpersuasive.
Concerning the CIAC case, the Court accepted the IBP’s finding that complainant failed to substantiate his claim of negligence, as the evidence showed the letter in question was directed to a sheriff and respondent had assisted accordingly. The recommended penalty from the IBP Board of Governors was adopted. Respondent Atty. Francisco S. Laurente was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.