Portuguese, Jr. vs. Centro

A lawyer's failure to file pleadings, misrepresentation about such filing, and failure to keep the client informed of case developments constitute gross negligence and abandonment of the client's cause, warranting suspension from the practice of law. The Court held that a lawyer is duty-bound to serve the client with competence and diligence, and the neglect of a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer renders the lawyer liable under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr. engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jerry R. Centro as his counsel in Civil Case No. 7177, entitled "Gloria V. Libarnes vs. Prudencio Portugues," a complaint for injunction, damages, and attorney's fees pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Surigao City. Atty. Centro drafted and filed the Answer to the complaint. The case proceeded to termination, after which the parties were required to file their respective memoranda.

Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr. engaged Atty. Jerry R. Centro as his counsel in Civil Case No. 7177, a complaint for injunction, damages, and attorney's fees filed against Portuguese before the RTC, Branch 32 of Surigao City. Atty. Centro drafted and filed the Answer to the complaint. At the termination of the proceedings, the parties were required to file their memoranda. After several follow-ups by Portuguese, Atty. Centro informed him that the memorandum had already been filed in court.

On January 25, 2018, Portuguese and his family were shocked to be served by a sheriff with a Notice giving them three days to comply with a Writ of Execution in connection with the civil case. This was the first time Portuguese learned of the rendition of a judgment in the case. It was discovered that Atty. Centro had received a copy of the RTC's July 10, 2017 Decision on August 10, 2017, but never advised Portuguese about it. Atty. Centro also did not file any pleading to appeal or question the RTC's Decision. Worse, Portuguese discovered that Atty. Centro had not actually filed a Memorandum, contrary to the latter's representation.

Portuguese further alleged that Atty. Centro failed to file any pleading to contest the Motion for Execution, failed to notify him of the scheduled hearing on the Motion for Execution, and failed to inform him about the trial court's resolution granting the Motion for Execution. Portuguese also averred that respondent was facing other administrative charges, specifically A.C. No. 11421 entitled "Emilie A. Lao vs. Atty. Jerry R. Centro" and another one supposedly filed by Atty. Centro's spouse. When Portuguese confronted Atty. Centro about the deliberate lapses concerning the civil case, the latter merely replied that there was nothing more he could do and that he was giving up the case for good.

The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Centro's inaction deprived Portuguese of a relief from the adverse decision in the civil case. The Commissioner noted that Atty. Centro failed to file his Answer to the instant Complaint despite notice, which showed his nonchalance and propensity to ignore lawful orders. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation to suspend Atty. Centro for three years.

• Gross Negligence and Abandonment: Portuguese alleged that Atty. Centro was grossly negligent, having failed to file a memorandum despite representing that it was filed, failed to inform him of the RTC's adverse Decision, failed to file any pleading to appeal or question the Decision, and failed to contest the Motion for Execution.
• Failure to Notify: Portuguese asserted that Atty. Centro failed to notify him of the scheduled hearing on the Motion for Execution and failed to inform him about the trial court's resolution granting the Motion for Execution.
• Prior Administrative Charges: Portuguese averred that respondent was facing other administrative charges, specifically A.C. No. 11421 and another one supposedly filed by Atty. Centro's spouse.

N/A — The decision does not recount any arguments attributed to Atty. Centro. The Court noted that Atty. Centro failed to file his Answer to the instant Complaint despite notice.

• Gross Negligence and Abandonment: Whether Atty. Centro's failure to file the memorandum, misrepresentation about its filing, and failure to inform his client of the adverse decision and subsequent execution proceedings constituted gross negligence and abandonment of his client's cause.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether Atty. Centro's acts and omissions violated the Lawyer's Oath and specific canons and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Failure to File Answer: Whether Atty. Centro's failure to file his Answer to the administrative Complaint showed nonchalance and propensity to ignore lawful orders, in violation of Canon 11 of the CPR.

• Gross Negligence and Abandonment: Yes. Atty. Centro's unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of his client's cause violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was grossly negligent of his duty as counsel and manifestly disinterested in his client's cause.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Yes. Atty. Centro was found guilty of violating Canon 11, Rule 12.03, Canon 17, Canon 18, Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Failure to File Answer: Yes. Atty. Centro's failure to file his Answer to the Complaint showed his indifference to lawful orders and established processes, revealing irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP and its proceedings.

• Gross Negligence and Abandonment: The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Atty. Centro departed from his sworn oath by committing the following acts: (1) failing to file a Memorandum and even misrepresenting about filing it; (2) failing to inform Portuguese of the RTC's Decision; (3) failing to protect Portuguese's interest against the adverse RTC's Decision; (4) failing to inform Portuguese of the Motion for Execution, the scheduled hearing, and the resolution granting the said motion; and (5) failing to file an Answer to the instant Complaint. When confronted, Atty. Centro merely replied that there was nothing more he could do and that he was giving up the case for good. The Court held that a lawyer is "duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion," because a lawyer owes fidelity to the client's cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found Atty. Centro guilty of violating Canon 11 (respect due to courts and judicial officers), Rule 12.03 (failing to file pleadings, memoranda, or briefs after obtaining extensions without offering an explanation), Canon 17 (fidelity to the client's cause), Canon 18 (competence and diligence), Rule 18.03 (neglect of a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer), and Rule 18.04 (failure to keep the client informed of the status of the case). Atty. Centro casually set aside a legal matter entrusted to him which deserved his full attention and diligence.
• Failure to File Answer: The Court noted that Atty. Centro disregarded the directive to file his Answer to the Complaint against him, showing indifference to lawful orders and established processes. His unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP revealed his irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP and its proceedings, exposing a character flaw that should not tarnish the nobility of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that being a lawyer is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a member of the bar must maintain the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

• Lawyer's duty of competence and diligence — A lawyer is duty-bound to serve the client with competence and to attend to the client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion. This is because a lawyer owes fidelity to the client's cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court applied this doctrine in finding Atty. Centro grossly negligent for failing to file a memorandum, misrepresenting that it was filed, and failing to protect his client's interests.
• Neglect of a legal matter (Rule 18.03, CPR) — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The Court applied this rule to Atty. Centro's failure to file the memorandum and his failure to take any action to protect Portuguese's interests after the adverse decision.
• Duty to keep client informed (Rule 18.04, CPR) — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. Atty. Centro violated this rule by failing to inform Portuguese of the RTC's Decision, the Motion for Execution, the scheduled hearing, and the resolution granting the motion.
• Respect due to courts and judicial officers (Canon 11, CPR) — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Atty. Centro's failure to file his Answer to the administrative Complaint despite notice showed his nonchalance and propensity to ignore lawful orders, violating this canon.
• Disciplinary powers of the Court over lawyers — In administrative proceedings against a lawyer, the Court, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
• Practice of law as a public trust — A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and/or breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral character.

• "He casually set aside a legal matter that was entrusted to him and which deserved his full attention and diligence. He was grossly negligent of his duty as counsel and was manifestly disinterested in his client's cause." — This passage articulates the Court's finding of gross negligence and abandonment, forming the core basis for the penalty imposed.
• "He should have informed Portuguese at the earliest opportunity that he could no longer properly represent him and perform his functions as counsel. This way, Portuguese would have the option to secure the services of another lawyer so that his interests would be protected." — This passage states the Court's expectation of a lawyer's duty to inform the client of incapacity to continue representation, which is central to the ratio decidendi.
• "His unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment x x x revealed his irresponsibility as well as his disrespect for the IBP and its proceedings. He thereby exposed a character flaw that should not tarnish the nobility of the Legal Profession." — This passage addresses the aggravating circumstance of the respondent's failure to file an Answer, demonstrating indifference to lawful orders.

• Bondoc vs. Licudine, A.C. No. 12768, June 23, 2020 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer is duty-bound to serve his client with competence and to attend to the client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion.
• Vda. de Dominguez vs. Atty. Agleron, Sr., 728 Phil. 541 (2014) — Cited in support of the lawyer's duty of fidelity to the client's cause and mindfulness of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
• Mitchell vs. Amistoso, A.C. No. 10713, September 8, 2020 — Cited for the Court's disciplinary powers over members of the Bar and the standard for imposing penalties for violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.
• Ylaya vs. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390 (2013) — Cited for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, which is to preserve the purity of the legal profession.
• Ramiscal vs. Atty. Oro, 781 Phil. 318 (2016) — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer's unexplained disregard of IBP orders reveals irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP and its proceedings.
• Ko vs. Maduramente, A.C. No. 11118, July 14, 2020 — Cited for the principle that being a lawyer is a privilege burdened with conditions.
• Saladaga vs. Atty. Astorga, 748 Phil. 1 (2014) — Cited for the same proposition regarding the privilege of practicing law.
• Berbano vs. Atty. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331 (2003) — Cited for the duty of a member of the bar to maintain the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
• Jimenez vs. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551 (2014) — Cited for the rule that the appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.

• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Applied to Atty. Centro's failure to file his Answer to the administrative Complaint despite notice.
• Rule 12.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. Applied to Atty. Centro's failure to file the memorandum.
• 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 Atty. Centro's abandonment of his client's cause.
• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Applied to Atty. Centro's gross negligence in handling the civil case.
• 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 Atty. Centro's failure to file the memorandum and failure to protect his client's interests.
• 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 the client's request for information. Applied to Atty. Centro's failure to inform Portuguese of the adverse decision and subsequent proceedings.
• Lawyer's Oath — Mandates every lawyer to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. Atty. Centro departed from his sworn oath by committing the enumerated acts of negligence and misrepresentation.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, and Rosario, JJ., concurred. Leonen, J., was on official business.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision.