A.C. No. 7433 [Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1554] - CESAR TALENTO AND MODESTA HERRERA TALENTO, VS. ATTY. AGUSTIN F. PANEDA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby recommend that respondent ATTY. AGUSTIN F. PANEDA be SUSPENDED for a period of ONE YEAR from receipt hereof from the practice of his profession as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar." [12] On November 18, 2006, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVII-2006-495 adopting the aforequoted Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, thus: "RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's inexcusable negligence, Atty. Agustin F. Paneda is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year." [13] The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling petitioners' case both on trial in the RTC and on appeal in the CA which led to its dismissal without affording petitioners the opportunity to present their evidence. After a careful consideration of the records of the instant case, this Court agrees with the IBP in its findings and conclusion that respondent's documented acts fall extremely short of the standard of professional duty that all lawyers are required to faithfully adhere to. The pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide: CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. x x x x x Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. There is no doubt that respondent was woefully remiss in his duty to display utmost diligence and competence in protecting the interests of his clients. The records of this case clearly detailed dire instances of professional neglect which undoubtedly showed respondent's failure to live up to his duties and responsibilities as a member of the legal profession. Petitioners lost Civil Case No. A-2043 in the RTC mainly because they were barred from presenting their evidence in court. This was a result of their being declared in default in the said case as a consequence of respondent's failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. Respondent defended his non-appearance by stating that he had informed petitioners beforehand of a conflict of schedule and that he had instructed them on what to do in his absence, but petitioners vehemently denied this claim. Even if we are to give credence to respondent's justification, this does not excuse him from the fact that he was unable to file a Pre-trial Brief at least three (3) days prior to the sch