A.C. No. 13466 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5156) - MARICEL H. ARTATES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO.

Ruling

accordingly, meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. In Ramiscal v. Oro , [18] the Court imposed against the errant lawyer the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, with a stern warning that any similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely, when he failed to inform his client of the status of his case. In Martin v. Dela Cruz , [19] the Court found the errant lawyer liable for violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of suspension from practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Similarly, in Spouses Gimena v. Vijiga , [20] the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months against the errant lawyer who failed to inform the clients of the status of their case. Likewise, in Mejares v. Romana , [21] the errant lawyer, among, others, failed to inform his client of the decision dismissing the latter's case. Accordingly, the Court suspended the errant lawyer from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. Consequently, in Sorensen v. Pozon , [22] the Court found the respondent lawyer liable for violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR when he failed to notify his client of the progress of her cases. Accordingly, he was meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. In view thereof, the Court affirms the recommendation of the IBP­ BOG. Accordingly, he is meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. On a final note, it is worthy to remind lawyers of the duty they owe to their clients. A lawyer should never leave his or her client groping in the dark, for to do so would destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed not only in the lawyer so retained, but also in the legal profession as a whole. Aside from delivering efficient and effective legal services, lawyers must also timely and adequately inform their clients about the status of their case. The lawyer's duty to keep his or her clients constantly updated on the developments of the case is crucial in maintaining the latter's confidence in the legal profession. [23] ACCORDINGLY , respondent Atty. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello (respondent) is found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 17, as well as Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, and is STERNLY WARN