Edquibal v. Ferrer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Felix E. Edquibal charged respondent Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. with professional misconduct and neglect of duty. The complainant alleged that respondent was engaged to assist his mother in several cases concerning a real property. While respondent secured favorable judgments in four out of five cases, an adverse decision was rendered in Civil Case No. RTC-1495-I. Respondent advised an appeal to the Court of Appeals and accepted P2,000.00 from the complainant for this purpose. Procedural History: The complainant later discovered that the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019 was dismissed due to the failure to file the appellant's brief. Respondent denied filing an appeal or receiving the P2,000.00, claiming he did his best and did not ask for fees. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner found that respondent was the counsel of record and had received notice to file the brief, which he failed to do, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to reprimand respondent and order him to return the P2,000.00. The Petition: This Court reviewed the IBP's Resolution and sustained its findings regarding respondent's negligence. The Court noted that respondent was the counsel of record and received notice to file the appellant's brief but failed to do so, violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found respondent's failure to file the brief and to keep the complainant informed of the case status to be inexcusable neglect. Consequently, the Court found respondent guilty of professional misconduct and neglect of duty, imposing a suspension of three months and ordering the return of the P2,000.00.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. committed professional misconduct and neglect of duty by failing to file the appellant's brief in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019. Whether respondent is liable for the dismissal of the appeal due to his failure to file the required brief.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, finding Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. guilty of professional misconduct and neglect of duty. He was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months and directed to return the amount of ₱2,000.00 to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of professional misconduct and neglect of duty: The Court found that respondent was the counsel of record for the appellants in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019. The records clearly showed that respondent received the notice from the Court of Appeals requiring him to file the appellant's brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof, which he received on March 16, 2000. His failure to file the brief despite receipt of the notice constituted inexcusable negligence. The Court emphasized that Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure considers the counsel in the court of origin as the counsel in the Court of Appeals. If respondent did not intend to represent the appellants, he should have filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. His inaction led to the dismissal of the appeal, causing prejudice to his clients. This conduct violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 18.03 which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and Rule 18.04 which requires a lawyer to keep the client informed of the status of his case. The Court reiterated that diligence is the attention and care required in a given situation, and a lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client. The practice of law requires ordinary diligence, which respondent clearly failed to exhibit. The failure to file a brief within the reglementary period has been consistently held by the Court as an offense warranting disciplinary action, even leading to suspension or disbarment in aggravated cases. Considering the circumstances, the Court found the recommended penalty of reprimand insufficient and increased it to suspension for three (3) months. On the issue of liability for dismissal of the appeal: Respondent's failure to file the appellant's brief, as the counsel of record, directly resulted in the dismissal of the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019. This neglect prejudiced his clients and constitutes a violation of his duties as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's failure to file an appellant's brief despite receipt of notice constitutes inexcusable negligence and violates Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.