G.R. No. A.M. No. 1240. October 26, 1976.
LUZ P. JOSE, complainant, vs. GONZALO U. GARCIA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Luz P. Jose was convicted of Attempted Homicide. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA- G.R. No. 08666 -CR, she was represented by respondent Atty. Gonzalo U. Garcia. The appellate court promulgated its decision affirming the conviction on July 9, 1973. Before this, respondent had traveled to Zamboanga City. Anticipating his absence, he executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Melchor Gamutan to receive his mail from his Manila Post Office box. Gamutan retrieved the Court of Appeals decision from the post office on July 17, 1973, and dispatched it to respondent in Zamboanga the next day via JRS Business Corporation, a messengerial service.
Respondent returned to Manila on August 4, 1973. Upon learning from Gamutan that letters had been sent, he inquired with JRS. On August 7, 1973, JRS handed him the undelivered mail, which included the court decision. The period to appeal via a motion for reconsideration or to elevate the case to the Supreme Court had lapsed on August 2, 1973. Consequently, the decision became final. Complainant charged respondent with negligence, alleging he failed in his duty to timely inform her of the adverse decision, thereby depriving her of her right to appeal, and with improperly appearing in court while a government employee.

ISSUE

Whether respondent lawyer is administratively liable for negligence for his failure to timely inform his client of an adverse appellate court decision, resulting in the loss of her right to appeal.

RULING

The Court dismissed the charge. The core of the ruling is that a lawyer’s liability for negligence requires a showing of want of due care or a conscious disregard for the client’s interest. The evidence established that respondent took reasonable and prudent steps to ensure he would receive his mail while away. He formally authorized an attorney-in-fact to collect his correspondence and instructed that important mail be forwarded. The attorney-in-fact complied, promptly sending the decision via a commercial messengerial service.
The fatal delay was caused solely by the failure of JRS Business Corporation to effect delivery in Zamboanga, not by any inaction or fault of respondent. This was corroborated by a subsequent civil case where the court found JRS negligent for failing to deliver because respondent had already left the given address for Manila. There was no evidence of malice, deceit, or deliberate intent on respondent’s part to prejudice his client. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer bears a high duty of care, he cannot be held liable for the independent negligence of a third-party service upon which he reasonably relied. The act or omission constituting negligence must be attributable to the lawyer himself. Since the failure of timely notice was due to an external agency’s inefficiency, no ethical breach was committed. The ancillary charge of improper government employment was not substantiated in the resolution.