TL;DR

In a disciplinary case, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Johnny Landero for six months for neglecting his client’s case. Atty. Landero failed to attend a pre-trial, did not inform his client about it, and then failed to file a petition for review despite receiving payment and an extension. The Court emphasized that lawyers must diligently handle cases entrusted to them and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, reinforcing that neglecting client matters and misleading the court are serious ethical violations with significant consequences.

Shattered Trust: When an Attorney’s Negligence Costs a Client’s Case

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Davao Import Distributors, Inc. against their lawyer, Atty. Johnny Landero, for professional misconduct. The core issue stems from Atty. Landero’s handling of a civil case for recovery of property. Davao Import Distributors had hired Atty. Landero to represent them in a dispute concerning an air-conditioning unit. However, a series of missteps and omissions by Atty. Landero ultimately led to the dismissal of their case and a counterclaim judgment against them. This case highlights the critical importance of diligence and competence expected of legal professionals under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), particularly Canons 12 and 18.

The factual backdrop reveals a troubling narrative of neglect. Atty. Landero was engaged to file a case against Angelita Librando and Juanito Du. Crucially, he failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference, and further, did not even inform his clients about it. This absence resulted in the dismissal of Davao Import Distributors’ case for non-suit. Adding insult to injury, the court allowed Du to present evidence ex parte on his counterclaim, eventually awarding him damages and attorney’s fees against Davao Import Distributors. Despite these setbacks, Atty. Landero did not file a motion for reconsideration. Instead, he pursued an appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the initial unfavorable decision.

The situation worsened when Atty. Landero was tasked with elevating the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). He received funds for filing fees and even secured an extension to file a petition for review. Astonishingly, he failed to file the petition altogether. His defense, presented to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and later to the Supreme Court, was riddled with inconsistencies and attempts to deflect blame onto his client’s representative. He claimed an agreement to abandon the case and cited pity for his client’s representative as reasons for his inaction and misrepresentation to the CA regarding the filing deadline. The IBP, after investigation, recommended a suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors increased to six months. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the IBP’s findings.

The Supreme Court’s resolution firmly underscored the duties of a lawyer under the CPR. The decision explicitly cites Canon 18, which mandates that lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence. The Court reiterated its previous rulings, stating, “He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable.” Atty. Landero’s deliberate absence from the pre-trial, coupled with his failure to inform his client, was deemed a clear breach of this duty. Even if there was an agreement to abandon the case, the Court pointed out that proper procedure demanded he attend the pre-trial to formally withdraw the complaint.

The Court emphasized the prejudice suffered by Davao Import Distributors due to Atty. Landero’s negligence. Had he been present at the pre-trial, or informed his clients, they would have had the opportunity to defend against the counterclaim. The decision quotes Rule 17, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, highlighting the option for a plaintiff-initiated dismissal without prejudice, a recourse Atty. Landero failed to pursue. Instead, his inaction resulted in a dismissal under Section 3 of the same Rule, which operated as an adjudication on the merits, foreclosing future refiling of the case.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court condemned Atty. Landero’s misleading conduct regarding the petition for review. His attempt to justify not filing the petition after obtaining an extension, and his misrepresentation of the receipt date of the RTC decision, were viewed as a violation of Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the CPR. This canon compels lawyers to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and prohibits allowing periods to lapse after securing extensions without proper explanation. The Court firmly stated, “[A] lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court…graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to its processes.”

The Court adopted the IBP’s recommendation, suspending Atty. Landero for six months. This decision serves as a stark reminder to legal practitioners of their fundamental obligations to their clients and the courts. Diligence, competence, and candor are not merely aspirational goals but essential components of professional responsibility. Neglecting cases, failing to communicate with clients, and misleading the court carry significant repercussions, impacting not only the client’s interests but also the lawyer’s standing in the legal profession.

FAQs

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: Davao Import Distributors, Inc. v. Atty. Landero, A.C. No. 5116, April 13, 2015