A.C. No. 5732 - ALFREDO C. OLVIDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARNEL C. GONZALES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it suspended respondent from the practice of law for four months. On October 7, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted [27] to the Court a Notice of Resolution, together with the records of the case and the information that "no motion for reconsideration has been filed by either party." The Court's Ruling Except for the penalty imposed on the respondent, we find the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution No. XX-2013-164 well-founded in law and in fact. The respondent, Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales, is liable as charged. He grossly violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. The complainant had all the reasons to terminate the respondent's services and to have him disciplined for his patent neglect of duty as lawyer. As the records show, the respondent gave the complainant the run-around for an unreasonably long period of time; the latter had to repeatedly inquire about and follow up the filing of the position paper in the DARAB case. On the matter alone of keeping complainant posted on the status of the case, the respondent failed to comply with his duty under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 that " a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of the case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information ." The deadline for the filing of the position paper had come and gone, but the complainant was still trying to get information from the respondent and from his office on the matter. Inexplicably, at so late a period for the filing of the position paper and without even asking for extension to file the pleading, the respondent remained unavailable until the complainant's receipt of a copy of the DARAB decision dismissing the case for lack of merit due to the respondent's failure to file a position paper. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that " A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE . Accordingly, Rule 18.02 mandates that " a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable ." As the Court said in Biomi Sarenas-Ochagabia v. Atty. Balmes L. Ocampos : [28] " A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. By failing to file appellant's brief, respondent was remiss in the discharge of such responsibility. He thus violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. " Also, in In Re: Atty. David Briones , [29] we held that the failure of the counsel to submit the required brief within the reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action, xxx His failure to file an appellant's brief x x x has caused the appeal to remain inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of his client, the accused himself, who continues to languish in ja