Quiachon vs. Ramos

The withdrawal of a disbarment complaint by the complainant does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and the Supreme Court to continue administrative proceedings against a lawyer, and a lawyer who neglects a client's cause by failing to inform the client of adverse rulings and failing to pursue available legal remedies is guilty of negligence warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Adelia V. Quiachon was the client of Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos, who represented her in a labor case before the National Labor Relations Commission and in a special proceeding case before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City. The relationship was that of attorney and client, governed by the duties imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04, which require lawyers to serve clients with competence and diligence and to keep them informed of the status of their cases.

Adelia V. Quiachon engaged the legal services of Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos to represent her in a labor case before the National Labor Relations Commission and in a special proceeding case before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City. In the labor case, the Labor Arbiter rendered a favorable decision on 26 November 2007, but the NLRC reversed and set aside that decision on 25 July 2008. On 24 October 2008, the NLRC likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent on complainant's behalf. A Petition for Certiorari was thereafter filed before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC's reversal. The notice of the CA Decision was received by respondent on 23 November 2010.

After the Petition was filed before the CA, complainant repeatedly asked respondent about the status of her case, and he consistently told her that there was no decision yet. Sometime in August 2011, while complainant was in respondent's office waiting for him to arrive, she noticed a mailman delivering an envelope bearing the title of her labor case. She asked respondent's secretary to open the envelope and discovered that it contained the Entry of Judgment of the CA's Decision. Complainant tried repeatedly to contact respondent but was unable to reach him. When she finally spoke with him, respondent assured her that "it was alright" because they still had six months to appeal to the Supreme Court. After that final meeting, no further updates on the labor case were ever communicated to complainant.

With respect to the special proceeding case, the RTC of Roxas City dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but was likewise denied. Respondent took no further action to reverse the RTC Decision, and the Entry of Judgment was received on 28 October 2008.

On 28 November 2011, complainant filed the disbarment Complaint against respondent. In his Comment, respondent averred that he had informed complainant of the status of the case, claiming that he told her he could not cite any error of law or abuse of discretion in the CA's decision that would necessitate a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, and that he had advised her to respect the CA's decision. During the pendency of the IBP proceedings, on 5 February 2013, complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent had been remiss in failing to update complainant on the status of her cases but nonetheless recommended dismissal on the ground that the withdrawal of the complaint left no basis to make any finding of liability. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

• Gross Negligence and Deceit: Complainant charged respondent with gross negligence and deceit for failing to inform her of the status and adverse outcomes of her cases, particularly the CA Decision in the labor case, which she discovered only by accident when a mailman delivered the Entry of Judgment to respondent's office.
• Failure to Pursue Remedies: Complainant asserted that respondent failed to file an appeal from the CA Decision and took no action to reverse the RTC Decision in the special proceeding case, thereby prejudicing her causes of action.

• Client Was Informed: Respondent averred that complainant was informed of the status of the case, claiming he told her that he could not cite any error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals that would necessitate a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.
• Advice to Respect the Decision: Respondent maintained that he had advised complainant to respect the decision of the Court of Appeals, and he prayed for the dismissal of the disbarment Complaint for lack of merit.

• Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint: Whether the withdrawal of a disbarment complaint by the complainant terminates or abates the jurisdiction of the IBP and the Supreme Court to continue the administrative proceeding against the respondent-lawyer.
• Negligence of Counsel: Whether respondent is guilty of negligence for failing to inform complainant of the status of her cases and for failing to file an appeal from the CA Decision.

• Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint: No. The withdrawal of a disbarment complaint does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and the Supreme Court to continue administrative proceedings against a lawyer, the complainant being merely a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention and not a party to the case.
• Negligence of Counsel: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of negligence for failing to keep his client informed of adverse rulings and for failing to pursue available legal remedies, warranting suspension from the practice of law for six months.

• Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint: The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers; the real question is whether the attorney remains a fit person to practice law. Because public interest is the primary objective, the withdrawal or desistance of the complainant does not exonerate the respondent. If the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the complainant's withdrawal. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent had been remiss in failing to update complainant, yet recommended dismissal solely because the complaint was withdrawn. The IBP Board of Governors should not have supported that stance, as the finding of neglect required the imposition of the appropriate penalty regardless of the complainant's desistance.

• Negligence of Counsel: Respondent failed not only to keep his client informed of the status of the case but also to avail of the proper legal remedy that would promote the client's cause. Lawyers who disagree with the pursuit of an appeal should properly withdraw their appearance and allow the client to retain another counsel, rather than unilaterally abandoning the appeal without the client's knowledge and consent. As in Abay vs. Montesino, where a lawyer abandoned an appeal without obtaining the client's assent, respondent's conduct demonstrated a failure to exercise due diligence and a cavalier attitude toward his client's cause. All lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause and must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. Their failure to exercise the degree of vigilance expected of a good father of a family renders them unworthy of the trust reposed in them and answerable to the client, the courts, and society. In Pilapil vs. Carillo, the Court upheld a six-month suspension for a lawyer who failed to file a petition for certiorari despite the client's repeated follow-ups—a circumstance directly analogous to the present case.

• Withdrawal of Disbarment Complaint Does Not Abate Jurisdiction — The withdrawal of a disbarment case by the complainant does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and the Supreme Court to continue administrative proceedings against a lawyer. The complainant is not a party but a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention. The real question is whether the attorney is still fit to remain a member of the Bar. Public interest is the primary objective, and if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the complainant's desistance or withdrawal of charges. The Court applied this doctrine by reversing the IBP's dismissal of the case, which was based solely on the complainant's withdrawal, and proceeding to impose the penalty of suspension after finding negligence on the part of respondent.

• Duty of Diligence and Fidelity to Client's Cause — Lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause and must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause. When they take on a client's cause, they covenant to exercise due diligence in protecting the client's rights. Failure to exercise the degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes them unworthy of the trust reposed in them and answerable to the client, the courts, and society. A lawyer who disagrees with the pursuit of an appeal must properly withdraw his appearance and allow the client to retain another counsel; he may not unilaterally abandon the appeal without the client's knowledge and consent.

• "The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court." — This passage articulates the fundamental principle that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, undertaken for public interest rather than the private interest of the complainant, and is the canonical formulation relied upon to justify continuing proceedings despite the complainant's withdrawal.

• "The withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar." — This is the direct ratio decidendi on the jurisdictional issue, frequently cited in subsequent disbarment jurisprudence involving complainant desistance.

• "Lawyers who disagree with the pursuit of an appeal should properly withdraw their appearance and allow their client to retain another counsel." — This passage defines the proper course of action when counsel and client disagree on legal strategy, establishing that a lawyer may not unilaterally abandon a client's cause.

• Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, 349 Phil. 7 (1998) — Controlling precedent on the effect of a complainant's withdrawal in disbarment cases. The Court quoted this case for the proposition that a case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest or lack thereof, and that the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of the complainant.

• Abay vs. Montesino, 462 Phil. 496 (2003) — Followed as directly analogous precedent. In that case, a lawyer abandoned an appeal without obtaining the client's assent, and the Court found him guilty of negligence. The Court applied the same reasoning to hold that respondent's failure to file an appeal and to inform his client constituted negligence.

• Pilapil vs. Carillo, 443 Phil. 193 (2003) — Followed as analogous precedent supporting the penalty imposed. The Court in that case upheld a six-month suspension for a lawyer who failed to file a petition for certiorari of an adverse decision despite the client's repeated follow-ups, a circumstance directly comparable to the present case.

• Ylaya vs. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, 30 January 2013, 689 SCRA 452 — Cited for the principle that the complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party but a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention.

• Peña vs. Aparicio, 552 Phil. 512 (2007) — Cited for the principle that the real question in disciplinary proceedings is whether the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the Bar.

• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court invoked this canon to underscore respondent's duty to exercise due diligence in protecting complainant's rights.

• Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Rule 18.03 prohibits a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, and Rule 18.04 requires a lawyer to keep the client informed of the status of the matter. The IBP found that respondent violated these rules, and the Court upheld that finding, imposing the penalty of suspension despite the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint.

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Villarama Jr., and Reyes, JJ., concurred.