A.C. No. 5044 - FELIPE C. DAGALA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR. AND ATTY. AMADO T. ADQUILEN,*

Ruling

Accordingly, a fine in the amount of P500.00 was imposed [21] against him, which he duly paid on September 19, 2005. [22] On the other hand, Atty. Quesada, in his Comment, [23] admitted having accepted and filed the initial labor case for complainant. He, however, explained that he was unable to file the required position paper due to complainant's failure to furnish him with the employment records and other relevant documents. He also claimed that when he was informed of the dismissal of the case without prejudice, he advised complainant to re-file the case with the assistance of another lawyer as he had to attend to his duties as Chairman of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino for the Second District of La Union Province. [24] Anent the December 5, 1998 MoA, Atty. Quesada alleged that he was merely prevailed upon to sign the same for fear of losing his means of livelihood and license to practice law, and that he had no intention of reneging on his promise to pay. Nonetheless, despite earnest efforts, he still failed to come up with the agreed-upon amount. [25] In a Resolution [26] dated March 27, 2006, the Court resolved to refer the instant administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for evaluation, report and recommendation or decision. The Proceedings Before the IBP The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) set the case for mandatory conference on August 25, 2006 and required the parties to submit their respective briefs. [27] Complainant was duly represented [28] by his counsel at the hearing, [29] while respondents filed separate motions to reset, only to subsequently waive their respective appearances. Atty. Adquilen attributed the waiver to his medical condition; [30] on the other hand, in a complete turnaround, Atty. Quesada denied the existence of any lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant. [31] On March 25, 2009, Investigating IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation, [32] finding that respondents were grossly negligent in handling complainant's case in violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code). As such, he recommended that each of them be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Moreover, Atty. Quesada was directed to comply with his undertaking under the December 5, 1998 MoA to pay the amount of P68,000.00, with legal interest from January 20, 1999 until fully settled; while Atty. Adquilen was ordered to pay the amount of P6,000.00, representing the difference between the P74,000.00 settlement offered by Capitol and the above-stated settlement amount, with legal interest from date of notice of the order of dismissal on March 25, 1997 [33] until fully paid. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the afore-stated report and recommendation in Resolution No. XX-2011-262 dated November 19, 2011 (November 19, 2011 Resolution), finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on recor