A.C. No. 12835 - DANILO SANCHEZ, VS. ATTY. DINDO ANTONIO Q. PEREZ.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly reduced the penalty on Atty. Dindo Antonio Q. Perez from SUSPENSION from the practice of law for six (6) months to three (3) months. [11] Aggrieved, Danilo sought reconsideration explaining that the IBP erred in reducing the penalty. [12] On September 28, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors granted the motion and reinstated its earlier recommendation, to wit: RESOLVED to GRANT the Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration, and accordingly AFFIRM the earlier decision of the Board of Governors in Resolution No. XX-2013-270 dated March 20, 2013, SUSPENDING Respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. [13] RULING Lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature or imbued with utmost trust and confidence. [14] A lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. [15] Corollarily, a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. [16] Specifically, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer " shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable ." Case law further explains that a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. [17] Here, convincing evidence exist that Atty. Perez failed to exercise the required diligence in handling his client's case. The records show that Atty. Perez did not attend the pre-trial on December 10, 2003, resulting in the dismissal of the case. The fact that Atty. Perez was able to reconsider the order of dismissal would not exculpate him from his omission since the RTC dismissed again the case for his failure to appear on the subsequent pre-trial dates. Atty. Perez did not even offer any explanation to justify his absence on the scheduled hearings. On this point, Atty. Perez exhibited carelessness in handling his client's cause. Atty. Perez should have been more circumspect to send a substitute counsel to appear on his behalf instead of leaving the proceedings unattended in view of its adverse consequence, i.e. , the dismissal of the case. Moreover, Rule 18.04 of the CPR is explicit that a lawyer " shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information ." The lawyer's duty to keep his clients constantly updated on the developments of their case is crucial in maintaining the fiduciary nature of the