G.R. No. A.C. No. 7024; January 30, 2009
OFELIA R. SOMOSOT, Complainant, vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ofelia R. Somosot retained respondent Atty. Gerardo F. Lara as her counsel in Civil Case No. Q01-43544, a collection case where she was a defendant. She alleged that after filing an Answer, respondent failed to fully inform her of case developments, leading to a judgment on the pleadings against her and the eventual sale of her house and lot at public auction. She claimed respondent sought to withdraw as counsel without her knowledge or consent, misrepresented that he could not locate her, and represented her interests half-heartedly after his motion to withdraw was denied. Respondent denied negligence, asserting he performed his duties diligently despite complainant’s failure to pay his fees amounting to ₱27,000.00. He explained he joined government service, attempted to contact complainant at her office but found it locked, and filed a notice of withdrawal when he could not locate her. He later communicated with complainant by phone in December 2001, where she informed him she already had another lawyer. Despite the court denying his withdrawal, he continued to represent her by filing a motion for reconsideration and opposing execution. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended reprimand for lack of reasonable diligence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Gerardo F. Lara violated his duties as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent liable for misconduct. While respondent filed necessary pleadings, he failed to exercise reasonable diligence by not adequately opposing the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and not keeping complainant informed of critical developments, such as the interrogatories and request for admission. His efforts to withdraw were insufficient, especially after re-establishing contact with complainant in December 2001, when he could have revived his motion to withdraw with her consent. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to a client persists until properly relieved by the court. Mitigating circumstances, such as complainant’s failure to pay fees and respondent’s continued service despite non-payment, were considered. However, respondent’s negligence seriously affected his standing as an officer of the court. The penalty of disbarment was deemed too severe; instead, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.