Edquibal vs. Ferrer, Jr.

A lawyer who is counsel of record in the court of origin is deemed counsel in the Court of Appeals under Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and must either file the appellant’s brief or withdraw; failure to do so, coupled with failure to inform the client of the case status, constitutes professional misconduct and neglect of duty under Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Felix E. Edquibal engaged respondent Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. to assist his mother, Ursula Edquibal, in cases against Delia Edquibal-Garcia involving real property in Masinloc, Zambales. Respondent handled several cases for the mother, four of which resulted in favorable judgments. The disciplinary complaint is governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canons 17 and 18, and by Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which fixes the status of counsel in the Court of Appeals.

Complainant Felix E. Edquibal engaged respondent Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. to assist his mother, Ursula Edquibal, in cases she filed against his sister Delia Edquibal-Garcia involving a certain real property in Masinloc, Zambales. His mother obtained favorable judgments in four out of the five cases handled by respondent. In Civil Case No. RTC-1495-I, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Iba, Zambales, the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother.

Respondent then advised complainant to appeal to the Court of Appeals and said that the cost involved was ₱4,000. When complainant informed respondent that he did not have enough money, respondent said that ₱2,000 would be sufficient for the moment. After receiving the money from complainant, respondent told him just to wait for the result. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 65019.

When complainant failed to hear from respondent in January 2001, he went to the Court of Appeals to follow up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure of the appellant to file the required appellant’s brief.

In his comment dated June 2, 2003, respondent denied that he filed an appeal on behalf of complainant’s mother with the Court of Appeals or received ₱2,000. He claimed that complainant told him there was someone in the Court of Appeals who could help him regarding his appeal. Respondent also claimed that he “did his best” for complainant’s mother and did not even ask for attorney’s fees.

The IBP Commissioner found from the records of CA-G.R. CV No. 65019 that respondent was the counsel of record of the defendants-appellants therein, including complainant’s mother. The Court of Appeals Resolution dated August 31, 2000 stated that notice sent to counsel for defendants-appellants requiring him to file appellant’s brief within forty-five days from receipt was received by him on March 16, 2000. Respondent failed to file the appellant’s brief despite receipt of such notice.

• Failure to File Appellant’s Brief: Complainant alleged that respondent, after being engaged to assist his mother and after advising an appeal to the Court of Appeals, received ₱2,000 and told him to wait for the result, but failed to file the required appellant’s brief, causing the appeal to be dismissed.
• Neglect of Duty: Complainant charged respondent with professional misconduct and neglect of duty, alleging that he learned only upon following up at the Court of Appeals that the appeal had been dismissed for failure to file the appellant’s brief.

• Denial of Engagement and Receipt: Respondent denied that he filed an appeal on behalf of complainant’s mother with the Court of Appeals or received ₱2,000.
• Third-Party Assistance: Respondent claimed that complainant told him there was someone in the Court of Appeals who could help him regarding his appeal.
• Best Efforts and No Fees: Respondent claimed that he “did his best” for complainant’s mother and did not even ask for attorney’s fees.

• Counsel of Record: Whether respondent remained counsel of record in the Court of Appeals under Section 2, Rule 44 despite denying that he agreed to handle the appeal.
• Neglect of Duty: Whether respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and neglect of duty for failing to file the appellant’s brief and for failing to inform complainant of the status of the appeal.
• Penalty: Whether the IBP’s recommended penalty of reprimand and restitution should be sustained or increased.

• Counsel of Record: Yes. Under Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel in the court of origin is considered counsel in the Court of Appeals; if respondent did not agree to represent appellants, he should have filed a motion to withdraw.
• Neglect of Duty: Yes. Respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; his failure to file the brief caused dismissal of the appeal, and his failure to inform complainant was inexcusable.
• Penalty: No. The recommended reprimand was not sustained; the Court imposed suspension from law practice for three months and directed return of ₱2,000.

• Counsel of Record: Records show that respondent was the counsel of record for the appellants, complainant’s mother and other relatives, in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019. The Court of Appeals Resolution dated August 31, 2000 stated that notice requiring the appellant’s brief within forty-five days from receipt was received by respondent on March 16, 2000. Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall be considered respectively as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals. If respondent did not agree to represent the appellants, he should have filed a motion to withdraw as counsel; his failure to do so led the Court of Appeals to assume that he was representing them. Thus, he remained counsel of record.
• Neglect of Duty: Despite receipt of the notice, respondent failed to file the appellant’s brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and prejudice to his clients. His failure to inform complainant of the status of his mother’s appeal was inexcusable. The lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence, and the client must be adequately and fully informed about developments in the case. Respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence. The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or the extreme measure of care and caution of unusually prudent persons; only ordinary diligence (diligentia), or the degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias, is required. Even by this lesser standard, respondent’s failure to attend to his client’s appeal is clearly wanting. The Court cited People vs. Cawili, People vs. Villar, Jr., Blaza vs. Court of Appeals, Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilaban, Ford vs. Daitol, and In re: Santiago F. Marcos for the rule that failure to file a brief within the reglementary period is inexcusable neglect and an offense entailing disciplinary action.
• Penalty: The IBP recommended reprimand and restitution, and the Court sustained the findings but scaled the recommended penalty upward. In cases involving a lawyer’s failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court, the Court has imposed suspension from law practice for three months, six months, or even disbarment in severely aggravated cases. Considering the circumstances, respondent deserves suspension for three months. He is also directed to return ₱2,000 to complainant.

• Diligence required of lawyers — A lawyer must serve the client with competence and diligence. The law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or the extreme measure of care and caution of unusually prudent persons; only ordinary diligence (diligentia), or the degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias, is required. Applied to the facts, respondent’s failure to file the appellant’s brief and to inform his client fell below even ordinary diligence.
• Counsel of record in the Court of Appeals — Under Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin are considered respectively as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals. Applied to the facts, respondent was counsel of record in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019; if he did not agree to represent the appellants, he should have filed a motion to withdraw.
• Lawyer-client relationship as one of trust and confidence — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must keep the client informed of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable time to requests for information. Applied to the facts, respondent’s failure to inform complainant of the appeal’s status was inexcusable.
• Failure to file appellant’s brief as inexcusable negligence — The failure of counsel to submit the brief within the reglementary period is an offense entailing disciplinary action; it is inexcusable neglect and a duty not only to the client but also to the court. Applied to the facts, respondent’s failure caused the dismissal of the appeal and warranted disciplinary sanction.
• Penalty for failure to file brief — In cases involving a lawyer’s failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court, penalties have ranged from suspension for three months or six months to disbarment in severely aggravated cases. Applied to the facts, the Court imposed a three-month suspension and ordered restitution.

• "Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." — States the core disciplinary rule violated by respondent’s neglect of the appeal.
• "The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or that "extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their rights." All that is required is ordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias." — Defines the standard of diligence the Court applied, rejecting extraordinary diligence and requiring only ordinary diligence of a bonus pater familias.
• "It bears stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case." — Articulates the trust-and-confidence basis for the duty to keep the client informed of case developments.
• "In cases involving a lawyer’s failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court, we did not hesitate to suspend the erring member of the Bar from the practice of law for three months, six months, or even disbarment in severely aggravated cases." — Summarizes the Court’s penalty jurisprudence for failure to file briefs before appellate courts and supports the three-month suspension imposed.

• People vs. Cawili, G.R. No. 30543, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 728 — Cited for the rule that failure of counsel to submit the brief within the reglementary period is an offense entailing disciplinary action.
• People vs. Villar, Jr., G.R. No. 34092, July 29, 1972, 46 SCRA 107 — Cited for characterizing a lawyer’s failure to file a brief for his client as inexcusable neglect.
• Blaza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 31630, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 461 — Cited for the rule that filing a brief within the period set by law is a duty not only to the client but also to the court.
• Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilaban, A.C. No. 3907, April 10, 1997, 271 SCRA 109 — Cited as reiterating Ford vs. Daitol and In re: Santiago F. Marcos in holding that an attorney’s failure to file a brief for his client constitutes inexcusable negligence.
• Ford vs. Daitol, A.C. No. 3736, November 16, 1995, 250 SCRA 7 — Cited as holding that failure to file a brief constitutes inexcusable negligence and as an example of suspension.
• In re: Santiago F. Marcos, A.C. No. 922, December 29, 1987, 156 SCRA 844 — Cited similarly for inexcusable negligence and suspension.
• Alcala vs. De Vera, A.C. No. 620, March 21, 1974, 56 SCRA 30 — Cited for the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about developments in his case.
• In re Tionko, 43 Phil. 191 (1922), citing In re Filart, 40 Phil. 205 (1919) — Cited for the lawyer’s duty of entire devotion to the client’s interest, warm zeal, and exertion of utmost learning, skill, and ability.
• Guiang vs. Antonio, A.C. No. 2473, February 3, 1993, 218 SCRA 381 — Cited as an example of suspension for six months in cases involving failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court.
• Mariveles vs. Mallari, A.C. No. 3294, February 17, 1993, 219 SCRA 44 — Cited as an example of disbarment in severely aggravated cases of failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court.

• Section 2, Rule 44, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended — Provides that the counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals. Applied to the facts, respondent was deemed counsel in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019 and should have filed the appellant’s brief or moved to withdraw.
• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Applied to the facts, respondent violated this canon by failing to attend to the appeal and to inform his client.
• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Applied to the facts, respondent failed to serve his client with diligence.
• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Applied to the facts, respondent neglected the appeal.
• Rule 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to his client’s request for information. Applied to the facts, respondent failed to inform complainant of the appeal’s status.

Panganiban (Chairman), Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur.