G.R. No. A.C. No. 6899; November 16, 2011
ROGELIO F. ESTAVILLO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. GEMMO G. GUILLERMO and ATTY. ERME S. LABAYOG, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Rogelio F. Estavillo and his son engaged the legal services of respondents Atty. Gemmo G. Guillermo and Atty. Erme S. Labayog in Civil Case No. 31834 for Forcible Entry and Damages filed against them by Teresita A. Guerrero before the MTCC of Laoag City. The complainant charged the respondents with gross negligence. Specifically, the respondents failed to file an answer within the ten-day period fixed by the Rules of Court for forcible entry cases, as mandated by the summons served on March 18, 2005. They filed the answer only on April 4, 2005, or seven days late, leading the court to strike it from the records upon Guerrero’s motion. The complainant further alleged that the respondents failed to inform him of several critical case incidents: the April 15, 2005 hearing on Guerrero’s motion to strike the answer and a motion for indirect contempt; a March 28, 2005 Order with a writ of preliminary injunction; a May 20, 2005 hearing on Guerrero’s motion to adduce evidence on damages (which proceeded ex-parte); and a May 31, 2005 Order directing the complainant to pay damages and attorney’s fees. The complainant discovered the May 31, 2005 judgment himself and, when confronting Atty. Guillermo, was allegedly told, “We have plenty of work.” Atty. Labayog also failed to show them a draft notice of appeal as promised.
In their defense, the respondents claimed they waited for a court order on the applicability of summary procedure, presuming the regular 15-day period to answer applied. They denied negligence, asserting they represented the clients in all stages except one hearing due to a conflict, and that the complainant’s son regularly visited for updates. They contended Atty. Guillermo actually said, “not all cases are won, and our only remedy left is appeal,” and they did file an appeal.
The IBP Board of Governors initially recommended a three-month suspension but, upon reconsideration, reduced the penalty to reprimand. The Supreme Court reviewed this resolution.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Attys. Gemmo G. Guillermo and Erme S. Labayog are administratively liable for negligence in handling their client’s case, violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XIX-2011-503 (which imposed reprimand) and REINSTATED Resolution No. XVIII-2009-07 (which imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law).
The Court found the respondents negligent for failing to file the answer within the ten-day reglementary period under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court governing forcible entry cases. Their excuse—that they awaited a court order and presumed a 15-day period—demonstrated ignorance of basic procedural rules, constituting a breach of the duty to keep abreast of the law. This failure directly caused their client’s answer to be stricken out, leading to ex-parte proceedings and an adverse judgment. While the IBP Commissioner found insufficient evidence for other allegations (e.g., failure to inform about hearings), the core negligence in missing the filing deadline was established. The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes entire devotion to the client’s cause, must act with competence and diligence, and is bound by the duty to not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them. The respondents’ negligence violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The three-month suspension was deemed appropriate to underscore the seriousness of a lawyer’s duty to master procedural rules and diligently protect a client’s interests.