G.R. No. A.C. CBD No. 190 January 28, 1998
Corazon T. Reontoy, complainant, vs. Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Corazon T. Reontoy filed a complaint for disbarment against her counsel, Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, for negligence in handling her case for partition, accounting, and reconveyance pending before the RTC-Br. 4, Kalibo, Aklan. Respondent admits he was complainant’s lawyer in Civil Case No. 2805, which was decided against his client. He received a copy of the adverse decision on June 19, 1989, but filed the notice of appeal only on July 17, 1989, well past the expiry date of July 4, 1989. Respondent alleges he contacted complainant’s brother, Proculo Tomazar, to inform complainant of the loss and his opinion that an appeal was futile, requesting that complainant communicate with him if she disagreed. Believing the message was conveyed and receiving no advice from complainant, he intentionally did not file the notice of appeal. He later filed it on July 17, 1989, after Proculo informed him complainant wished to appeal. The trial court denied the appeal as filed out of time and granted the Motion for Execution of Judgment. In the IBP investigation, Proculo Tomazar testified that he was not authorized by complainant to communicate with respondent regarding the case and had no knowledge of it, corroborating complainant’s testimony that she never authorized him as her representative. Complainant further testified that when she checked on her case in September 1989, respondent merely told her the appeal period had elapsed and returned the case records.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit is administratively liable for negligence in failing to perfect his client’s appeal within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court held that it was respondent’s fault for not appealing within the reglementary period based on his personal belief that an appeal would be useless, without clear instruction from his client to waive the appeal. A lawyer owes entire devotion to protecting the client’s interest and must use all learning and ability to defend the client’s rights, presenting every remedy or defense within the law regardless of personal views. A lawyer has no authority to waive the client’s right to appeal. Failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice, proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s belated filing of the appeal after the period expired cannot mitigate liability and instead shows ignorance, as a lawyer ought to know such a filing would be struck down. Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties faithfully to protect his client’s rights and interests, causing complainant to lose her case and suffer the loss of her undivided share in five valuable parcels of land. Respondent Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality of the Resolution.