Respondent’s plea for leniency should not have been granted.
The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence.
Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was not complainant’s lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainant’s husband only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellant’s Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come up with, just to “beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.”[27]
Moreover, respondent does not deny that he was given notice of the fact that he filed the wrong pleading. However, instead of explaining his side by filing a comment, as ordered by the appellate court, he chose to ignore the CA’s Order. He claims that he was under the presumption that complainant and her husband had already settled the case, because he had not heard from the husband since the filing of the latter’s Memorandum of Appeal.
This explanation does not excuse respondent’s actions.
First of all, there were several remedies that respondent could have availed himself of, from the moment he received the Notice from the CA to the moment he received the disbarment Complaint filed against him. But because of his negligence, he chose to sit on the case and do nothing.
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code, which reads:
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.
If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, the least respondent could have done was to inform the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. He could have thus explained why he was no longer the counsel of complainant and her husband in the case and informed the court that he could no longer contact them.[28] His failure to take this measure proves his negligence.
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client’s case, viz:
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.[29]
Respondent has failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates his duties to his client, he engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for which he should be held accountable.[30]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
x x x."
See -
