In the case of NATIVIDAD UY vs. ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN, A.C. No. 8252 , July 21, 2009, where the respondent Atty. Braulio RG Tansinsin was suspended for three months by the Philippine Supreme Court, the following doctrines were pronounced by the Court:
1. Verily, respondent’s failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client’s cause.
2. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance, and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he should provide a quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation. By agreeing to be his client’s counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor; and his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.
3. It must be recalled that the MeTC (in the ejectment case) required the parties to submit their respective position papers. However, respondent did not bother to do so, in total disregard of the court order. In addition, respondent failed to file the memorandum on appeal this time with the RTC where complainant’s appeal was then pending. Civil Case No. C-20717 was, therefore, dismissed on that ground alone.
4. The importance of filing a memorandum on appeal cannot be gainsaid. Section 7 (b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court. –
x x x x.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant’s Memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
x x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]
By express mandate of the said Rule, the appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his part. His failure to comply with this mandate or to perform this duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal.
5. Respondent’s failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Resposibility which states:
Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
6. Aside from failing to file the required pleadings, respondent also lacked candor in dealing with his client, as he omitted to apprise complainant of the status of her ejectment case.
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. A client should never be left groping in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and in the legal profession in general. Respondent’s act demonstrates utter disregard of Rule 18.04, Canon 18, Code of Professional Resposibility, which states:
Rule 18.04–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.
7. All told, we rule and so hold that on account of respondent’s failure to protect the interest of complainant, respondent indeed violated Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.
8. The appropriate sanction is within the sound discretion of this Court. In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the Court consisted of either a reprimand or a fine of five hundred pesos with warning, suspension of three months or six months, and even disbarment in aggravated cases.
Considering the circumstances surrounding the instant case, a three-month suspension from the practice of law is the proper penalty.
