G.R. No. A.C. No. 7771; April 6, 2011
PATRICIO GONE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MACARIO GA, Respondent.

FACTS

This is a disciplinary case originating from a complaint filed by Patricio Gone against his counsel, Atty. Macario Ga, before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline on October 23, 1989. The complaint arose from Atty. Ga’s handling of NLRC Case No. RB-IV-2Q281-78 (“Patricio Gone v. Solid Mills, Inc.”). The labor case, dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, was on appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) when the NLRC building in Intramuros, Manila, was burned on December 13, 1983, destroying the records of the appealed case. Complainant alleged that as early as March 8, 1984, Atty. Ga had obtained a certification from the NLRC confirming the records were burned. Despite this knowledge, Atty. Ga allegedly took no action to reconstitute the records. On September 9, 1989, complainant sent a letter requesting the return of the case records in Atty. Ga’s possession, but as of the complaint date, Atty. Ga had not complied, causing alleged injustice to complainant and his family.
In his answer dated November 22, 1999, Atty. Ga recalled that after the fire, he received summons from the NLRC setting the case for hearing, but complainant failed to appear in two scheduled hearings, leading the NLRC to allegedly “shelve” the case. He averred he had not heard from complainant since 1984 until this complaint and noted that complainant’s wife is his relative. Several hearings before the IBP Commissioner were reset due to non-appearance of parties. During proceedings, complainant indicated openness to amicable settlement. In a Motion to Dismiss dated December 8, 2000, Atty. Ga alleged he had a “heart to heart talk” with complainant, who may have understood the shelving was not his fault and thus stopped pursuing the case, but he committed to help if needed.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended censure for violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94 dated September 19, 2007, adopted this with modification, censuring Atty. Ga and directing him to reconstitute and turn over the case records to complainant, with a stern warning for non-compliance. The Supreme Court, upon follow-up, found that no motion for reconsideration was filed by either party and that Atty. Ga failed to comply with the IBP directive. A Court resolution dated September 2, 2009, required Atty. Ga to explain his non-compliance, which he received on October 15, 2009, but to which he never responded.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Macario Ga should be held administratively liable for professional negligence and for disregarding lawful orders of the IBP and the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Macario Ga is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings. Atty. Ga breached his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 18.03 (prohibiting neglect of a legal matter) and Rule 18.04 (duty to keep client informed and respond to requests). His failure to reconstitute or turn over the case records after the fire and upon client’s request demonstrated a lack of competence and diligence, constituting a gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty and the trust reposed by his client. His personal sentiments against complainant were not a valid excuse; if he could not represent effectively, he should have withdrawn. His continued retention obligated him to provide his best service.
Furthermore, Atty. Ga exhibited disrespect for the judiciary and his profession by unjustifiably disregarding the lawful orders of the IBP Board of Governors (to reconstitute and turn over records) and the Supreme Court (to explain his non-compliance). As an officer of the court, he is duty-bound to obey court orders and IBP directives promptly.
Considering Atty. Ga is in the twilight of his career and that the complainant’s absence in NLRC hearings contributed to the case’s shelving, the Court deemed suspension too harsh. Instead, he was fined Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) for his failure to comply with IBP Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94. He was given a final warning that a more drastic penalty would be imposed if he still failed to reconstitute and turn over the case records to complainant.