SPS MONTECILLO vs ATTY GATCHALIAN

SPOUSES GERARDO MONTECILLO AND DOMINGA SALO NOY vs ATTY. EDUARDO Z. GATCHALIAN

A.C No. 8371 

June 28, 2017 

FACTS: 

Complainants engaged the legal services of respondent for an ejectment case in which they were the defendants. After filing their Answer to the complaint, complainants received a notice from the court setting the preliminary conference. When complainants went to respondent's office to confer with him about it, the latter told them that he did not receive the notice and that he could not attend the preliminary conference due to a conflict in his schedule. He allegedly advised them not to attend anymore as he would arrange with the court for a new schedule when he is available. Complainants relied on respondent's advice and did not attend the preliminary conference anymore. Thereafter, they found out that respondent not only failed to attend the scheduled preliminary conference, but also failed to take any steps to have it cancelled or reset to another date. They also learned that, contrary to respondent's representation, he did receive the notice setting the date of the preliminary conference. Subsequently, complainant received an order that the ejectment case submitted for decision due to complainants' failure to appear during the preliminary conference. 

When they approached respondent about it, he belittled the matter and told them not to worry as he would take care of it. Subsequently, the trial court issued a decision adverse to the complainants. Respondent received it but failed to inform complainants about the status of the case as to enable them to prepare the next course of action. Complainants learned about the adverse ruling upon inquiring with the trial court only nine (9) days after respondent's receipt thereof, when their period to appeal was almost about to lapse. Afterwards, complainants terminated respondent's legal services and engaged another lawyer to prepare their Memorandum of Appeal. In the IBP's Report and Recommendation the Investigating Commissioner recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months for breach of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He explained that the submission of the ejectment case for resolution and the eventual adverse decision against complainants were attributable to respondent's negligence. The IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR? 

RULING/S: 

The Court resolves to adopt the IBP's findings and recommendation. Every lawyer is duty-bound to serve his clients with utmost diligence and competence, and never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. A lawyer owes fidelity to the clients' cause and, accordingly is expected to exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. 

Consequently, he is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote one's full attention, skill, and competence to the case, whether it is accepted for a fee or for free. Jurisprudence provides that the lawyer's duties of competence and diligence include not merely reviewing cases or giving sound legal advice, but also consist of properly representing a client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings and conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him to do so. A lawyer's negligence in fulfilling these duties subjects him to disciplinary action.