TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that an attorney was not liable for failing to file an appeal brief when the dismissal of the appeal was due to the client’s initial inaction, not the attorney’s neglect. While the attorney accepted the case and received compensation, his subsequent inaction did not warrant disciplinary action because he promptly advised the client that reviving the appeal was futile. The Court emphasized the importance of diligence but also considered the attorney’s candor and the client’s initial negligence, ultimately dismissing the administrative complaint against the lawyer.

Twenty Years Later: Did Justice Delay Deny Due Process for a Quezon City Judge?

This case revolves around a complaint filed against Atty. Percival Lopez in 1974, who later became a regional trial court judge, for allegedly failing to file an appeal brief, leading to the dismissal of his client’s appeal. The central question is whether the attorney’s inaction, after accepting the case and receiving payment, constitutes professional misconduct, especially considering the client’s initial delay and subsequent desistance, and the procedural fairness of reviving the case after two decades.

The complainant, Abdul A. Sattar, alleged that Atty. Lopez failed to file an appeal brief with the Court of Appeals, resulting in the dismissal of Sattar’s appeal. Sattar claimed he paid Lopez a retaining fee and funds for printing expenses, with an additional payment contingent on acquittal. However, Lopez argued that his acceptance of the case depended on Sattar providing the case records, which Sattar failed to do. Lopez also stated that he was not informed of the appeal’s dismissal until after he was hired and that he advised Sattar that reviving the appeal was futile due to Sattar’s negligence.

Initially, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. Later, it was transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). After nearly twenty years, the IBP Commission on Discipline recommended suspending Lopez from law practice for three months, a decision the IBP Board of Governors approved. The Investigating Commissioner concluded that Lopez failed to act diligently after being hired and did not return the fees despite the appeal’s dismissal.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP’s findings. The Court emphasized that procedural due process requires giving the respondent a full opportunity to answer charges, produce witnesses, and be heard. Lopez was not notified of the hearings conducted by the investigating committee, leading the Court to believe he reasonably assumed the case was closed. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant had desisted from pursuing the case, and his initial testimony lacked substantial evidence to support the allegations.

The Court also highlighted that the dismissal of the appeal was due to the complainant’s initial inaction, not Lopez’s fault. Lopez was hired after the appeal had already been dismissed. While the Investigating Commissioner criticized Lopez for not returning the fees, the Court recognized that a lawyer is entitled to compensation for legal services rendered. It acknowledged that Lopez had spent time consulting with the complainant and researching the appeal, making the retained fees reasonable.

The Court considered Lopez’s duty under Rule 130, Section 20 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states that an attorney should only pursue actions they believe are just and defenses that are honestly debatable under the law. The Court did not question Lopez’s judgment in advising against reviving the appeal, finding that he promptly and candidly informed the complainant of his assessment, allowing Sattar time to seek other legal opinions. The Court emphasized that Lopez was retained for the specific service of preparing and filing the appeal brief, not as general counsel fully in control of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Atty. Percival Lopez.

FAQs

This case highlights the balance between an attorney’s duty of diligence and the consideration of a client’s initial negligence. It also reinforces the importance of procedural due process in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that not every instance of inaction warrants disciplinary action, especially when the attorney has acted candidly and the client’s own conduct contributed to the unfavorable outcome.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Abdul A. Sattar vs. Atty. Percival Lopez, A.C. No. 1370, April 18, 1997