EN BANC A.C. No. 9532, October 08, 2013 MARIA CRISTINA ZABALJAURE UI !ITC"ER, Complainant, v. ATT#. RUSTICO B.

A ATE, Respondent.

For the Court's resolution is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher complainant! against "tty. #ustico $. %agate respondent!, charging him for gross ignorance of the la& and unethical practice of la&. T$e %&ct' Complainant claimed to be the legal &ife of 'avid $. Pitcher 'avid!, ( a $ritish national &ho passed a&ay on )une 1*, (++,.- Prior to his death, 'avid &as engaged in business in the Philippines and o&ned, among others, ,+. of the shareholdings in Consulting /dge, 0nc., Consulting /dge!, a domestic corporation. 0n order to settle the affairs of her deceased husband, complainant engaged the services of respondent. 1
crala&library

2n )une ((, (++,, complainant and respondent met &ith 3atherine Moscoso $antegui $antegui!, 4 a major stoc5holder of Consulting /dge,6 in order to discuss the settlement of 'avid7s interest in the company. * 8hey agreed to another meeting &hich &as, ho&ever, postponed by $antegui. 9uspecting that the latter &as merely stalling for time in order to hide something, respondent insisted that the appointment proceed as scheduled. :
crala&library

/ventually, the parties agreed to meet at the company premises on )une (*, (++,. ;o&ever, prior to the scheduled meeting, complainant &as prevailed upon by respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the said premises, assuring her that the same &as legal.1+
crala&library

2n the scheduled meeting, $antegui e<pressed disappointment over the actions of complainant and respondent, &hich impelled her to just leave the matter for the court to settle. 9he then as5ed them to leave, loc5ed the office and refused to give them a duplicate 5ey.11
crala&library

9ubse=uently, ho&ever, respondent, &ithout the consent of $antegui, caused the change in the loc5 of the Consulting /dge office door,1( &hich prevented the employees thereof from entering and carrying on the operations of the company. 8his prompted $antegui to file before the 2ffice of the City Prosecutor of Ma5ati Prosecutor7s 2ffice! a complaint for grave coercion against complainant and respondent. 1- 0n turn, respondent advised complainant that criminal and civil cases should be initiated against $antegui for the recovery of 'avid's personal records>business interests in Consulting /dge.1, 8hus, on )anuary 16, (++1, the t&o entered into a Memorandum of "greement,11 &hereby respondent undertoo5 the filing of the cases against $antegui, for &hich complainant paid the amount of P11+,+++.++ as acceptance fee and committed herself to pay respondent P1,+++.++ for every court hearing.14
crala&library

2n ?ovember 1*, (++,, the Prosecutor7s 2ffice issued a #esolution 16 dated 2ctober 1-, (++,, finding probable cause to charge complainant and respondent for grave coercion. 8he corresponding 0nformation &as filed before the Metropolitan 8rial Court of Ma5ati City, $ranch 4-, doc5eted as Criminal Case ?o. --6:*1 grave coercion case!, and, as a matter of course, &arrants of arrest &ere issued against them. 1* 'ue to the foregoing, respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he had filed the necessary motions in court. /ventually, ho&ever, respondent abandoned the grave coercion case and stopped communicating &ith complainant. 1: Failing to reach respondent despite diligent efforts,(+ complainant filed the instant administrative case before the 0ntegrated $ar of the Philippines

0$P! @ Commission on $ar 'iscipline C$'!, doc5eted as C$' Case ?o. +4@14*:. 'espite a directive(1 from the 0$P@C$', respondent failed to file his ans&er to the complaint. 8he case &as set for mandatory conference on ?ovember (,, (++4, (( &hich &as reset t&ice,(- on )anuary 1(, (++6 and February (, (++6, due to the absence of respondent. 8he last notice sent to respondent, ho&ever, &as returned unserved for the reason Amoved out.B(, 0n vie& thereof, 0nvestigating Commissioner 8ran=uil 9. 9alvador 000 declared the mandatory conference terminated and re=uired the parties to submit their position papers, supporting documents and affidavits.(1
crala&library

T$e IB!(' Re)ort &*+ Reco,,e*+&t-o* 2n March 1*, (++:, 0nvestigating Commissioner Pedro ". Magpayo, )r. Commissioner Magpayo! issued a #eport and #ecommendation,(4 observing that respondent failed to safeguard complainant's legitimate interest and abandoned her in the grave coercion case. Commissioner Magpayo pointed out that $antegui is not legally obliged to honor complainant as subrogee of 'avid because complainant has yet to establish her 5inship &ith 'avid and, conse=uently, her interest in Consulting /dge.(6 ;ence, the actions ta5en by respondent, such as the placing of paper seal on the door of the company premises and the changing of its loc5, &ere all uncalled for. Corse, &hen faced &ith the counter legal measures to his actions, he abandoned his client's cause. (* Commissioner Magpayo found that respondent7s acts evinced a lac5 of ade=uate preparation and mastery of the applicable la&s on his part, in violation of Canon 1 (: of the Code of Professional #esponsibity Code!, &arranting his suspension from the practice of la& for a period of si< months.-+
crala&library

8he 0$P $oard of %overnors adopted and approved the aforementioned #eport and #ecommendation in #esolution ?o. DD@(+11@(41 dated ?ovember 1:, (+11 ?ovember 1:, (+11 #esolution!, finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable la&s and rules. -1
crala&library

0n a #esolution-( dated 2ctober *, (+1(, the Court noted the ?otice of the 0$P7s ?ovember 1:, (+11 #esolution, and referred the case to the 2ffice of the $ar Confidant 2$C! for evaluation, report and recommendation. -T$e OBC.' Re)ort &*+ Reco,,e*+&t-o* 2n February 11, (+1-, the 2$C submitted a #eport and #ecommendation -, dated February 4, (+1-, concluding that respondent grossly neglected his duties to his client and failed to safeguard the latter's rights and interests in &anton disregard of his duties as a la&yer.-1 0t deemed that the si<@month suspension from the practice of la& as suggested by the 0$P &as an insufficient penalty and, in lieu thereof, recommended that respondent be suspended for three years.-4 Ei5e&ise, it ordered respondent to return the P11+,+++.++ he received from complainant as acceptance fee. -6 T$e Co/rt.' R/0-*1 "fter a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs &ith and adopts the findings and conclusions of the 2$C. 8he Court has repeatedly emphasiFed that the relationship bet&een a la&yer and his client is one imbued &ith utmost trust and confidence. 0n this regard, clients are led to e<pect that la&yers &ould be ever@mindful of their cause and accordingly e<ercise the re=uired degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For his part, the la&yer is e<pected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, s5ill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and &hether he accepts it for a fee or for free. -* 8o this end, he is enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain la&ful objectives. -: 8hese principles are embodied in Canon 16, #ule 1*.+- of Canon 1*, and #ule 1:.+1 of Canon 1: of the Code &hich respectively stateG
chanroble svirtuala&library crala&library crala&library

C"?2? 16 @ " la&yer o&es fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. C"?2? 1* H " la&yer shall serve his client &ith competence and diligence. #ule 1*.+- H " la&yer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there&ith shall render him liable. C"?2? 1: H " la&yer shall represent his client &ith Feal &ithin the bounds of the la&. #ule 1:.+1 H " la&yer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the la&ful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. 3eeping &ith the foregoing rules, the Court finds that respondent failed to e<ercise the re=uired diligence in handling complainant7s cause since heG first, failed to represent her competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice beyond the proper bounds of la&I and, second, abandoned his client7s cause &hile the grave coercion case against them &as pending. "nent the first infraction, it bears emphasis that complainant's right over the properties of her deceased husband, 'avid, has yet to be sufficiently established. "s such, the high@handed action ta5en by respondent to enforce complainant's claim of o&nership over the latter7s interest in Consulting /dge H i.e., causing the change of the office door loc5 &hich thereby prevented the free ingress and egress of the employees of the said company H &as highly improper. Jerily, a person cannot ta5e the la& into his o&n hands, regardless of the merits of his theory. 0n the same light, respondent's act of advising complainant to go into hiding in order to evade arrest in the criminal case can hardly be maintained as proper legal advice since the same constitutes transgression of the ordinary processes of la&. $y virtue of the foregoing, respondent clearly violated his duty to his client to use peaceful and la&ful methods in see5ing justice,,+ in violation of #ule 1:.+1, Canon 1: of the Code as above@=uoted. 8o note further, since such courses of action &ere not only improper but also erroneous, respondent e=ually failed to serve his client &ith competence and diligence in violation of Canon 1* of the Code. 0n the same regard, he also remained unmindful of his client7s trust in him H in particular, her trust that respondent &ould only provide her &ith the proper legal advice in pursuing her interests H thereby violating Canon 16 of the Code. Cith respect to the second infraction, records definitively bear out that respondent completely abandoned complainant during the pendency of the grave coercion case against themI this not&ithstanding petitioner7s efforts to reach him as &ell as his purported receipt of the P11+,+++.++ acceptance fee. 0t is hornboo5 principle that a la&yer7s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely revie&ing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the re=uired pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases &ith reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even &ithout prodding from the client or the court. ,1 ;ence, considering respondent7s gross and ine<cusable neglect by leaving his client totally unrepresented in a criminal case, it cannot be doubted that he violated Canon 16, #ule 1*.+- of Canon 1*, and #ule 1:.+1 of Canon 1: of the Code. 0n addition, it must be pointed out that respondent failed to file his ans&er to the complaint despite due notice. 8his demonstrates not only his lac5 of responsibility but also his lac5 of interest in clearing his name, &hich, as case la& directs, is constitutive of an implied admission of the charges leveled against him. ,( 0n fine, respondent should be held

administratively liable for his infractions as herein discussed. 8hat said, the Court no& proceeds to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed against respondent. 9everal cases sho& that la&yers &ho have been held liable for gross negligence for infractions similar to those committed of respondent &ere suspended from the practice of la& for a period of t&o years. 0n Jinon v. Jiz,,- a la&yer &ho neglected his client's case, misappropriated the client's funds and disobeyed the 0$P7s directives to submit his pleadings and attend the hearings &as suspended from the practice of la& for t&o years. 0n Small v. Banares,,, the Court meted a similar penalty against a la&yer &ho failed to render any legal service even after receiving money from the complainantI to return the money and documents he received despite demandI to update his client on the status of her case and respond to her re=uests for informationI and to file an ans&er and attend the mandatory conference before the 0$P. "lso, in Villanueva v. Gonzales,,1 a la&yer &ho neglected complainant7s causeI refused to immediately account for his client7s money and to return the documents receivedI failed to update his client on the status of her case and to respond to her re=uests for informationI and failed to submit his ans&er and to attend the mandatory conference before the 0$P &as suspended from the practice of la& for t&o years. ;o&ever, the Court observes that, in the present case, complainant &as subjected to a graver injury as she &as prosecuted for the crime of grave coercion largely due to the improper and erroneous advice of respondent. Cere it not for respondent7s imprudent counseling, not to mention his act of abandoning his client during the proceedings, complainant &ould not have unduly suffered the harbors of a criminal prosecution. 8hus, considering the superior degree of the prejudice caused to complainant, the Court finds it apt to impose against respondent a higher penalty of suspension from the practice of la& for a period of three years as recommended by the 2$C. 0n the same light, the Court sustains the 2$C's recommendation for the return of the P11+,+++.++ acceptance fee received by respondent from complainant since the same is intrinsically lin5ed to his professional engagement. Chile the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the respondent@la&yers's administrative and not his civil liability, ,4 it must be clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed liabilities &hich are purely civil in nature @ for instance, &hen the claim involves moneys received by the la&yer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct and not instrinsically lin5ed to his professional engagement such as the acceptance fee in this case!. ;ence, considering further that the fact of respondent's receipt of the P11+,+++.++ acceptance fee from complainant remains undisputed, ,6 the Court finds the return of the said fee, as recommended by the 2$C, to be in orderG
chanroblesvirtuala&library

2"ERE%ORE, respondent "tty. #ustico $. %agate is found guilty of violating Canon 16, #ule 1*.+- of Canon 1*, and #ule 1:.+1 of Canon 1: of the Code of Professional #esponsibility. "ccordingly, he is hereby SUS!EN3E3 from the practice of la& for a period of three -! years, effective upon the finality of this 'ecision, &ith a stem &arning that a repetition of the same or similar acts &ill be dealt &ith more severely. Further, respondent is OR3ERE3 to return to complainant Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher the P11+,+++.++ acceptance fee he received from the latter &ithin ninety :+! days from the finality of this 'ecision. Failure to comply &ith the foregoing directive &ill &arrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. Eet a copy of this 'ecision be furnished the 2ffice of the $ar Confidant, the 0ntegrated $ar of the Philippines, and the 2ffice of the Court "dministrator for circulation to all the courts.

EN BANC A.C. No. 4922, October 01, 2013 MAR# ANN T. MATTUS, Complainant, v. ATT#. ALBERT T. 5ILLASECA, Respondent.6 $efore us is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Mary "nn 8. Mattus against "tty. "lbert 8. Jillaseca for gross and ine<cusable negligence in handling Criminal Case ?o. 1+-+:@+(. B&c71ro/*+ %&ct' 8he complainant, %erman $ernardo '. Mattus and 'e<ter "ligan &ere the accused in Criminal Case ?o. 1+-+:@+( H a case for estafa thru falsification of public document filed in the #egional 8rial Court RTC!, $ranch (+, 0mus, Cavite. 8he complainant and her husband, %erman, engaged the services of "tty. Jillaseca to represent them in the proceedings. 8he complainant maintained that she and %erman &ere convicted due to "tty. Jillaseca7s gross and ine<cusable negligence in performing his duties as their counsel. 0n her complaint@affidavit,1 the complainant alleged, among others, that "tty. JillasecaG 1! &as often absent during court hearings but still collected appearance feesI (! fre=uently sought the postponement of trial &hen he &as presentI -! failed to as5 the #8C to direct a ?ational $ureau of 0nvestigation e<pert to e<amine the signatures of the spouses Eeslie and Zuraida Porter( in the special po&er of attorney SPA!I ,! failed to file a demurrer to evidence despite having been granted sufficient time by the #8C to submit oneI 1! failed to present evidence on behalf of the defense, and only filed a memorandumI 4! did not inform her and %erman of the dates of the presentation of defense evidence and the promulgation of judgmentI and 6! erroneously indicated the &rong case number in the notice of appeal. "ccording to the complainant, "tty. Jillaseca7s negligence in handling the case resulted in her o&n and her husband7s conviction. 0n the Court7s #esolution- of )uly 14, (++*, &e re=uired "tty. Jillaseca to comment on the complaint. 2n 9eptember 1+, (++*, "tty. Jillaseca filed his comment, , refuting the allegations against him. "tty. Jillaseca e<plained that he made 5no&n to the complainant that the testimony of a hand&riting e<pert &as necessary only if the prosecution &ould be able to produce the original copy of the 9P". "tty. Jillaseca also claimed that his absences during the hearings, as &ell as his numerous motions for postponement, &ere justified and &ere never intended for delay. ;e denied having collected appearance fees &hen he did not attend the scheduled hearings, and maintained that the fees he received &ere intended to compensate him for his services in the other cases filed by the complainant. "tty. Jillaseca further claimed that he immediately corrected the case number in the notice of appeal &hen he discovered this error. 0n a #esolution1 dated 2ctober 11, (++*, &e referred the case to the 0ntegrated $ar of the Philippines IBP! for investigation, report and recommendation. T$e IB!'( Re)ort &*+ Reco,,e*+&t-o* 0n his #eport and #ecommendation4 dated 9eptember 14, (++:, 0nvestigating Commissioner 9alvador $. ;ababag recommended that "tty. Jillaseca be suspended for si< 4! months from the practice of la&. Commissioner ;ababag ruled that "tty. Jillaseca7s rec5less and gross negligence deprived his clients of due processI his actuations in the criminal case sho&ed utter disregard for his clients7 life and liberty. Commissioner ;ababag

e<plained that "tty. Jillaseca failed to file a demurrer to evidence despite the sufficient length of time that had been given to him by the #8C to submit this pleading, and &aived his right to present evidence for the defense, opting instead to file a memorandum only. Commissioner ;ababag concluded that "tty. Jillaseca7s failure to properly attend to the interests of his clients led to their conviction. 0n #esolution ?o. D0D@(+11@(116 dated May 1,, (+11, the 0$P $oard of %overnors adopted and approved the findings of the 0nvestigating Commissioner, but increased "tty. Jillaseca7s period of suspension from the practice of la& from si< 4! months to one 1! year. O/r R/0-*1 A8ter & c&re8/0 re9-e: o8 t$e recor+', t$e Co/rt 8-*+' t$e e9-+e*ce o* recor+ '/88-c-e*t to '/))ort t$e IB!(' 8-*+-*1'. 2e, $o:e9er, -*cre&'e Att;. 5-00&'ec&(' )er-o+ o8 '/')e*'-o* 8ro, t$e )r&ct-ce o8 0&: 8ro, o*e <1= ;e&r to 8-9e <5= ;e&r'. Ce stress at the outset that a la&yer Ais e<pected to e<ert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause, for the un&avering loyalty displayed to his client li5e&ise serves the ends of justice.B * 2nce a la&yer agrees to ta5e up the cause of a client, the la&yer o&es fidelity to such cause and must al&ays be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. ;e o&es entire devotion to the interest of the client, &arm Feal in the maintenance and defense of his client7s rights, and the e<ertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be ta5en or &ithheld from his client, save by the rules of la&, legally applied. " la&yer &ho performs his duty &ith diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his clientI he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. :
crala&library

8he records of the present case sho& that "tty. Jillaseca had been grossly remiss in handling Criminal Case ?o. 1+-+:@+(. 8o recall, "tty. Jillaseca requested for time to file demurrer to evidence after the prosecution had rested its case. 0n its order1+ of )uly 1, (++,, the #8C gave him (+ days from receipt of the transcript of stenographic notes &ithin &hich to file a demurrer to evidence. "tty. Jillaseca, ho&ever, did not file a demurrer to evidence, &ithout offering any e<planation &hy he failed to do so. "s a result, the #8C issued an order 11 stating that "tty. Jillaseca Ais deemed to have &aived his right to file the said pleading.B 8o our mind, "tty. Jillaseca7s failure to submit a demurrer to evidence to e<plain such omission constitutes ine<cusable negligenceI it sho&ed his lac5 of devotion and Feal in preserving his clients7 cause. Ce point out that nine months had lapsed from the time the #8C granted "tty. Jillaseca (+ days to file the demurrer to the time it ruled that he &as deemed to have &aived his right to file this pleading. Clearly, "tty. Jillaseca7s actuations violated #ule 1(.+of the Code of Professional #esponsibility &hich states that AKaL la&yer shall not, after obtaining e<tensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse &ithout submitting the same or offering an e<planation for his failure to do so.B 8he records further disclosed that after "tty. Jillaseca7s failure to file a demurrer to evidence, the #8C set the initial presentation of defense evidence on May :, (++1. ;o&ever, this hearing &as postponed thriceG the May :, (++1 hearing &as reset to "ugust *, (++1 due to "tty. Jillaseca7s failure to appearI 1( the "ugust *, (++1 hearing &as reset to ?ovember 16, (++1 upon "tty. Jillaseca7s motionI1- and the ?ovember 16, (++1 hearing &as reset to March 1, (++4 because of "tty. Jillaseca7s manifestation that his intended first &itness &as unavailable. 1, 'uring the March 1, (++4 hearing, the respondent manifested that the +e8e*'e :o/0+ *o 0o*1er )re'e*t &*; e9-+e*ce, &*+ ,o9e+ t$&t $e be 1-9e* t-,e to 8-0e & ,e,or&*+/,.11
crala&library

Ce point out that the prosecution rested its case on )uly 1, (++,I yet "tty. Jillaseca &aited until March 1, (++4 onl to manifest t!at !e "ould no lon#er present an evidence . Ce are at a loss &hy "tty. Jillaseca chose not to present any evidence for the defense, considering that the accused &anted and &ere ready to ta5e the &itness stand. "s a result, the testimony of the lone prosecution &itness remained uncontroverted. 8o ma5e matters &orse, "tty. Jillaseca directed %erman to attend the hearing on )une 4, (++6 &ithout informing him that it &as already the date of the promulgation of judgment. 8he Code of Professional #esponsibility states that AKaL la&yer o&es fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.B 14 0t further mandates that AKaL la&yer shall serve his client &ith competence and diligence.B16 0t also states that AKaL la&yer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection Kthere&ithL shall render him liable.B 1*
crala&library

"tty. Jillaseca7s failure to present any testimonial, object or documentary evidence for the defense reveals his lac5 of diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the CourtI it sho&ed his indifference to&ards the cause of his clients. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his clients &ere at sta5e, "tty. Jillaseca should have e<erted efforts to rebut the presented prosecution evidence. ;e could have presented the complainant and>or her husband to the &itness stand, instead of just opting to file a memorandum. 2r, at the very least, the reason for this move should have been fully e<plained to the clients, and later to the 0$P and to this Court. $ut no such e<planation ever came. Ce are thus left &ith the star5 reality that "tty. Jillaseca failed to file, despite the promise made to the lo&er court, a demurrer to evidence. "fter failing in this first line of defense for his clients, it should have been incumbent upon "tty. Jillaseca to present evidence for the defense, but again, he une<plainably failed to do this, leaving the lo&er court &ith no evidence to appreciate e<cept that of the prosecution, to the detriment of his clients7 cause. Ce emphasiFe that &hile a la&yer has complete discretion on &hat legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense &ithin the authority of the la& to support his client7s cause. " memorandum, no matter ho& lengthy, should not be made a substitute for testimonial, object or documentary evidence, more so in a criminal case &here a conviction could lead to dire conse=uences. 0n saying so, &e are not insinuating that the #8C decision &ould have tilted in favor of the defense had "tty. Jillaseca presented evidenceI &e simply stress that utmost fidelity and attention are demanded once counsel agrees to ta5e the cudgels for his client's cause. Ce again remind members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms e<pected of the legal profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code of Professional #esponsibility. " la&yer engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest &ith utmost diligence. 0t is his duty to serve his client &ith competence and diligence, and he should e<ert his best efforts to protect, &ithin the bounds of the la&, the interests of his client.1: " la&yer7s diligence and vigilance is more imperative in criminal cases, &here the life and liberty of an accused is at sta5e. Jerily, the entrusted privilege to practice la& carries &ith it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. "s &e e<plained in Spouses Bautista v. Att . Arturo CefraG(+
crala&library

K8Lhe practice of la& is a privilege besto&ed by the 9tate on those &ho sho& that they possess the legal =ualifications for it. Ea&yers are e<pected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. 8hey must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance &ith the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional #esponsibility.

A8he appropriate penalty on an errant la&yer depends on the e<ercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.B(1 Mnder the circumstances, &e find that the 0$P7s recommended penalty of one year7s suspension from the practice of la& is not commensurate to "tty. Jillaseca7s transgressions. ;is incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts and society indicate a high degree of irresponsibility that casts dishonor on the legal profession.
chanrob1e svirtuala&library

8he present case finds a close forerunner in Santeco v. Att . Avance,(( &here &e suspended "tty. Euna $. "vance from the practice of la& for five 1! years for being grossly remiss in the performance of her duties as counsel. 0n this cited case, the civil case entrusted to "tty. "vance &as dismissed for failure to prosecute. 'uring the pendency of her motion for reconsideration &hich she had filed &ay beyond the reglementary period!, she told her client that she &ould file a petition for certiorari before the C" to assail the dismissal of the civil case. 9he did not file this petition, but failed to inform her client of this omission. Moreover, "tty. "vance stopped appearing as counsel for her client &ithout notifying the latter. "tty. Jillaseca7s negligence in the present case had much graver implications, as the legal matter entrusted to him involved not merel mone or propert $ %ut t!e ver li%ert and liveli!ood of !is clients . Ce stress that the moment "tty. Jillaseca agreed to handle the complainant7s criminal case, he became duty@bound to serve his clients &ith competence and diligence, and to champion their cause &ith &hole@hearted fidelity. $y failing to afford his clients every remedy and defense that is authoriFed by the la&, "tty. Jillaseca fell short of &hat is e<pected of him as an officer of the Court. Ce cannot overstress the duty of a la&yer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. "ll told, "tty. Jillaseca sho&ed a &anton and utter disregard to his clients7 causeI his failure to e<ercise due diligence in attending to their interest in the criminal case caused them grave prejudice. Mnder the circumstances, &e find a five@year suspension from the practice of la& to be a sufficient and appropriate sanction against him. 8he increased penalty serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the Court, the legal profession and the public. 2"ERE%ORE premises considered, &e find "tty. "lbert 8. Jillaseca guilty of negligence, in violation of #ules 1(.+and 1*.+- and Canon 16 of the Code of Professional #esponsibility. ;e is hereby SUS!EN3E3 from the practice of la& for five 1! years, effective upon his receipt of this 'ecision, and STERNL# 2ARNE3 that a repetition of the same or similar offense &ill be dealt &ith more severely. Eet a copy of this 'ecision be furnished to the 2ffice of the $ar Confidant, the 0ntegrated $ar of the Philippines, and the 2ffice of the Court "dministrator for circulation to all the courts.