A.C. No. 7421; October 10, 2007
Elisa V. Venterez, Genaro de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon de Vera, Complainants, vs. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants engaged respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme as their counsel in a civil case for Declaration of Ownership with Damages before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan. The MTC rendered an adverse decision against complainants on February 25, 2004, a copy of which respondent received on March 4, 2004. Complainants alleged they instructed respondent to file either a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal, but he failed to do so, allowing the 15-day reglementary period to lapse on March 19, 2004. Complainant Elisa V. Venterez was forced to engage another lawyer, who prepared a motion for reconsideration filed a day late on March 19, 2004, which the MTC denied. Respondent subsequently failed to oppose a motion for a writ of execution filed by the opposing party, leading to its grant and the issuance of the writ.
Respondent, in his defense, claimed that Salvador Ramirez, son of one complainant, informed him they were engaging new counsel and withdrew the case records. He asserted he turned over the records and thus ceased to be counsel. He denied receiving copies of the late motion for reconsideration or its denial. He also stated he notified Ramirez about the motion for execution but only filed a notice of retirement of counsel on May 3, 2004.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme is administratively liable for gross negligence and dereliction of duty in handling his clients’ case.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors’ resolution adopting the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation for a three-month suspension. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental duty of a lawyer to a client once representation is undertaken. A lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause and must carry the representation to its termination, meaning until the case becomes final and executory. He cannot arbitrarily abandon his client without reasonable cause and appropriate notice.
The Court found respondent’s defense of withdrawal unpersuasive. His alleged turnover of records to a relative of a complainant did not constitute a proper and formal withdrawal from the case, especially as no notice of withdrawal was filed until months after the adverse decision. His inaction—failing to file an appeal or motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period and failing to oppose the motion for execution—directly prejudiced his clients, causing the judgment to become final and executory. This constituted a blatant disregard of his duty to exercise due diligence and protect his clients’ interests. Such negligence lessens public confidence in the legal profession. Considering the circumstances, a three-month suspension from the practice of law was deemed appropriate.