G.R. No. 147960. July 16, 2008.
FIL-GARCIA, INC., represented by FILOMENO GARCIA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FERNANDO CRESENTE C. HERNANDEZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fil-Garcia, Inc. filed a collection case against Magdalena Villasi. The Regional Trial Court ruled in complainant’s favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Complainant then engaged the services of respondent Atty. Hernandez to file a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. Respondent received the CA Resolution denying reconsideration on May 8, 2001, giving him until May 23, 2001, to file the petition.
Instead of filing on time, respondent filed three successive motions for extension, citing prior political commitments, subsequent illness, and other urgent legal matters. The Supreme Court denied the first motion due to respondent’s failure to state the material dates required by the rules. The subsequent motions and the eventually filed petition were also denied. Respondent then failed to inform complainant about the denial of the petition for seven months, leading complainant to discover the adverse outcome only through its own follow-up.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Hernandez is administratively liable for his handling of the appeal, which resulted in the loss of the client’s remedy, and for his failure to keep the client informed.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for negligence and for violating his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation of a six-month suspension from the practice of law.
The legal logic is clear: a lawyer owes the client duties of competence and diligence. Respondent’s failure to file the petition within the reglementary period, despite knowing the deadline, constituted gross negligence. His excuses for seeking extensions were personal and unpersuasive, and his procedural lapse in the first motion (omitting material dates) directly caused the petition’s dismissal. More critically, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer must keep the client informed of the case status. Respondent’s seven-month silence, which deprived the client of any opportunity to seek alternative remedies after the dismissal, was a blatant violation of this fundamental duty. A lawyer’s fidelity is to the client; when personal commitments conflict, the client must be informed to secure other counsel. Respondent’s neglect and lack of communication betrayed this trust and warranted disciplinary action.