AM L 1411; (August, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1411 August 24, 1984
OBDULIA L. PRADO, complainant, vs. ELISEO A. RAZON, respondent.
FACTS
Obdulia L. Prado charged lawyer Eliseo A. Razon with gross negligence for failing to inform her seasonably of an adverse trial court decision. Prado had appealed her conviction for slander to the Court of First Instance of Manila, with Razon representing her. The trial court rendered a decision affirming the conviction on November 6, 1974. A copy was received at Razon’s office on November 8 and delivered to him on November 14. The reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal expired on November 23 without any action from Razon. Prado only received a copy of the decision by mail from Razon on November 25, two days after the deadline had lapsed.
In his defense, Razon claimed that Prado had taken all case papers from him and never returned to inquire about her appeal, a claim Prado denied. He stated he waited for her after receiving the decision and later mailed it to her after ascertaining her address. However, Razon undermined his own credibility by admitting he committed a mistake due to personal preoccupations with an ejectment suit against him, which occupied his mind.
ISSUE
Whether respondent lawyer Eliseo A. Razon is administratively liable for negligence in handling his client’s case.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable for negligence. The Court found that an attorney-client relationship existed, established through a mutual friend, and Razon did not formally withdraw from the case. His obligation to apprise his client of material developments, such as an adverse decision, remained. His failure to act within the reglementary period, which prejudiced Prado’s right to appeal, constituted negligence. His excuse of personal problems and his unsubstantiated claim that the client had dispensed with his services were insufficient to absolve him. While the Solicitor General recommended suspension, the Court considered the circumstances, including the informal nature of the engagement and Razon’s admission and plea for indulgence. Consequently, the Court censured Razon for his negligence and ordered a copy of the decision attached to his personal record with the Bar Confidant.