A.C. No. 5279 - ROMEO TELLES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROGELIO P. DANCEL.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, for violating [Canon] 11 and [Rules] 12.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. [21] The OBC noted that Atty. Dancel has ultimately the propensity of filing motions for extension of time to file pleadings, and not filing the same, in violation of Rule 12.03, Canon 12 in connection with Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His explanation that it was his diabetes that prevented him from filing Telles' appeal brief did not convince the OBC as it noted that the appellate court gave him a total of 75 days within which to file his pleading. He also did not attach any documentary evidence to support his allegation that he was afflicted with said ailment. The OBC further held that Telles' death did not absolve Atty. Dancel from administrative liability. Not only was there sufficient documentary proof of Atty. Dancel's negligence, there is also a need to discipline him if only to set an example for other lawyers. Finally, the OBC stated that not only was Atty. Dancel negligent in handling his client's case, he also blatantly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court, taking him 15 years to comply with the order for him to file a Comment. [22] The Court's Ruling We agree with the findings of the OBC. However, we find that a stiffer penalty is in order. The duties of a lawyer may be classified into four general categories. The duties he owes to the court, to the public, to the bar, and to his client. A transgression by a lawyer of any of his duties makes him administratively liable and subject to the Court's disciplinary authority. [23] Here, the duties transgressed by Atty. Dancel fall under the duties to his client and to the Court. As correctly observed by the OBC, Atty. Dancel has the propensity for filing motions for extension of time to file pleadings and failing to file the same. When a lawyer is engaged to represent a client in a case, he bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. His failure to file a brief for his client amounts to inexcusable negligence. It is a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client, as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice. [24] Atty. Dancel, in failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his client, had clearly fallen short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. [25] According to said Canon, a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Rule 12.03 in particular states that a "lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the