A.C. No. 13786 - PROBO H. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE N. LAKI.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, in lieu of a suspension, it is recommended that a FINE AMOUNTING TO TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 20,000.00) be imposed against Respondent for his failure to abide by the directives of this Office and an ADDITIONAL FINE OF TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP20,000.00) for his violations of the Canon 18, Rules 18.02, and 18.03, with warning that repetition of similar acts or omissions will be dealt with severely. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [12] The Investigating Commissioner found that Laki was remiss of his duties in handling the cases of complainant when he negligently: 1) failed to include the Register of Deeds as respondent in the Petition to Compel the Surrender of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 505528-R, Register of Deeds Pampanga which thus proved to be detrimental to his client's case as the said case was dismissed; (2) filed two criminal complaints which were both dismissed outright for insufficiency of evidence; and (3) failed to file a written comment despite an order from the court to the detriment of complainant's cause. Clearly, all these failures constitute a violation of Laki's duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case. [13] The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that despite notice, Laki failed to file an answer or position paper and failed to attend the mandatory conference. [14] The Investigating Commissioner also noted that Laki has already been disbarred in the case of Mariano v. Laki , [15] and was fined in the latter case of Nicolas v. Atty. Laki . [16] According to the Investigating Commissioner, these administrative cases show that he has a penchant for ignoring the rules. [17] On November 12, 2022, the IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) issued a Resolution adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. [18] Issue The sole issue in this case is whether Laki violated Canon 18, Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the CPR. Ruling of the Court The Court adopts the factual findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors with modification in view of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). It bears noting, that on May 30, 2023, A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, entitled "Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability" (CPRA) took effect. Section 1 of the General Provisions of the CPRA provides that it shall apply to all pending and future cases involving members of the Bars, to wit: GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1. Transitory provision. The CPRA shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. Thus, the Court shall resolve the instant administrative case against Laki under the framework of the CPRA. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust a