A.C. No. 12066 - VICENTE FERRER A. BILLANES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEO S. LATIDO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the administrative complaint was referred to the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation. During the mandatory conference, however, only respondent appeared. [25] The IBP's Report and Recommendation In a Report and Recommendation [26] dated February 24, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded for failure to exercise the diligence required of a lawyer to his client. [27] The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant failed to prove with "clear preponderant evidence" his allegations of respondent's malpractice and gross misconduct. On the other hand, the Investigating Commissioner gave credence to respondent's defense of good faith, considering that he had a genuine desire to help complainant by assisting him in the appeal process of his visa application and by giving him the amount of P108,000.00 in an effort to help rectify the situation and share in the additional expenses that may occur. [28] Nevertheless, the Investigating Commissioner still found basis to hold respondent liable for violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He explained that an attorney-client relationship was still formed between complainant and respondent, despite the latter's non-participation in the former's case. As such, respondent should have exercised reasonable care and diligence by verifying the authenticity of the RTC Decision with the issuing court, and his failure to do so resulted in his client spending more time and money regarding his legal matter. [29] In a Resolution [30] dated April 19, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, meting upon respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for violating Canon 18 of the CPR. Aggrieved, respondent moved for reconsideration [31] which was, however, denied by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution [32] dated April 20, 2017. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable. The Court's Ruling Essentially, complainant claims that he engaged respondent as his lawyer to handle the annulment of his marriage and was made to believe that they were following the correct legal process. Notwithstanding the fact that complainant was a resident of Lipa City, Batangas, and that he never participated in any court proceedings, respondent eventually presented to him the RTC Decision issued by the RTC-Ballesteros purportedly granting his petition for annulment. As respondent assured complainant of the Decision's authenticity, the latter submitted a copy of the same as one of the supporting documents of his Australian visa application. To complainant's surprise, the Australian Embassy informed him of the spurious nature of the RTC Decision, which hence, caused him prejudice, not only in terms of jeopardizing his visa ap