G.R. No. A.C. No. 9197, February 12, 2020
Damaso Sta. Maria, Juanito Tapang and Liberato Omania, Complainants, vs. Atty. Ricardo Atayde, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Damaso Sta. Maria, Juanito Tapang, and Liberato Omania charged respondent Atty. Ricardo Atayde, Jr. with violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent acted as their counsel in consolidated civil cases before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, which ruled against them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals directed the filing of an appeal brief. Complainants informed respondent of the directive and gave him P2,000.00 for its filing, with a deadline of July 15, 2010. Respondent assured them he would file it but failed to do so. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to file the brief, making the trial court’s decision final and executory. In his defense, respondent claimed he intentionally did not file the brief because he was informed by one client, Severino Pascual, that the parties had amicably settled and that complainant Damaso Sta. Maria had vacated the property. He also claimed he tried but failed to contact his clients and that they did not follow up, leading him to assume a settlement. He denied accepting the P2,000.00 and alleged that Damaso Sta. Maria tried to extort money from him.

ISSUE

Is respondent Atty. Ricardo Atayde, Jr. liable for violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence and not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Respondent’s failure to file the required appeal brief constituted gross negligence and a breach of his duty to safeguard the interests of all his eight clients, not just the one who allegedly informed him of a settlement. His admission of intentionally not filing the brief, coupled with inconsistent explanations (amicable settlement and failed contact attempts), demonstrated a lack of candor and due diligence. This negligence caused the dismissal of the appeal, permanently depriving complainants of a review of the case. The Court rejected the recommended three-month suspension by the IBP and imposed a stiffer penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months, citing analogous cases where similar negligence led to the loss of client property or rights. The penalty is effective immediately, with a warning against repetition.