A.C. NO. 3882 - LILIA C. RONCAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ORLANDO C. PARAY.

Ruling

accordingly recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months. The investigating commissioner also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it prays for the payment of the value of the lot subject of Civil Case No. 601. We agree with the findings of the investigating commissioner. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Hence, the Court, in Guiang v. Antonio [20] and Villaluz v. Armenta , [21] suspended lawyers from the practice of law for failing to appeal their respective clients cases within the prescribed period. These cases are squarely applicable herein. The excuses offered by Atty. Paray, i.e ., that he lost the copies of the decisions of the MTC and the RTC which he needed for the petition and that the complainant was uncooperative when requested to secure copies of these documents, are unpersuasive, trivial, and unsatisfactory. Atty. Paray should be reminded of the Courts pronouncement in Guiang v. Antonio , supra , that a diligent lawyer should obtain copies of the needed decisions himself. More so in this case because Atty. Paray admitted that the copies of the decisions were entrusted to him, only that he lost them. Atty. Parays transgression is compounded by his utter disrespect for the authority of the IBP as manifested by his repeated failure to appear before the investigating commissioner. In Priscila L. Toledo v. Erlinda Abalos , [22] the Court suspended a lawyer for a period of one (1) month solely for failing to acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to its authority over her as a member of the IBP. A commensurate penalty must be imposed on Atty. Paray. On the other hand, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the complainant now asks the Court to exonerate Atty. Paray from the administrative charges she filed against him and prays that he be required to pay the actual value of the lot subject of Civil Case No. 601 instead. Both prayers should be denied. In administrative proceedings, the complainant or the person who calls the attention of the court to the alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper management of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of the complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. [23] In the instant case, the Court is convinced that Atty. Paray violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be subjected to disciplinary action notwithstanding the complainants change of heart. Anent the issue of damages, the Court has repeatedly ruled that it is not a collecting agency. Besides, disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievances. [24] Hence, the prayer f