G.R. No. A.C. No. 8907. June 3, 2019.
SPOUSES EDUARDO AND MYRNA VARGAS, ET AL., REPRESENTED BY NESTOR D. VARGAS, THEIR JOINT ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, Complainants, vs. ATTY. ARIEL T. ORIÑO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants were defendants in a forcible entry case before the MCTC of Libmanan-Cabusao, Camarines Sur. After their PAO lawyer withdrew, they hired respondent Atty. Ariel T. Oriño as counsel. Respondent entered his appearance at a stage when the MCTC had already appointed a commissioner for a relocation survey and set a hearing on the Commissioner’s Report for March 12, 2010. Respondent failed to appear at this hearing despite notice. The MCTC then ordered the submission of position papers within ten days. Respondent received the order but failed to prepare and submit complainants’ position paper, resulting in a judgment against complainants. Respondent filed a notice of appeal to the RTC. The RTC directed the filing of a memorandum on appeal within 15 days. Respondent again failed to file the memorandum, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Complainants alleged they paid respondent an acceptance fee of ₱20,000, an appearance fee of ₱1,500, and gave live chickens and root crops. When asked about the unfiled position paper, respondent allegedly stated, “Hindi ko na sinagot dahil talo na kayo sa forcible entry. Sa lupa na lang kayo maghabol.”
In his Comment, respondent admitted being a local politician who accepted the case because some complainants were his supporters. He claimed he found the case frivolous and intended to withdraw but was overtaken by election activities. He admitted drafting but not finishing the position paper due to complainants’ alleged uncooperativeness. He admitted receiving the chickens and root crops but denied receiving ₱20,000. He also denied making the Tagalog statement, claiming he rarely spoke Tagalog as a Bicolano.
The case was referred to the IBP-CBD. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him, recommending a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent lawyer violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. The Court adopted the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty.
A lawyer-client relationship was established when respondent agreed to handle the case and accepted payment (cash and in kind). Canon 18 requires a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 specifically states a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. The Court emphasized that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he must exercise due diligence, and failure to do so renders him administratively liable, regardless of whether the service is for a fee or free.
Respondent neglected his duties by: (1) failing to attend the March 12, 2010 hearing; (2) failing to submit the required position paper, leading to an adverse MCTC decision based solely on the adversary’s submission; and (3) failing to file the memorandum on appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. His reasons—the case being unmeritorious, his political activities, and complainants’ uncooperativeness—were unacceptable and demonstrated a lack of the diligence required of a lawyer. His failure to formally withdraw obligated him to continue representing his clients’ interests diligently.
Respondent’s acts constituted inexcusable negligence. The Court increased the recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for one year, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.