A.C. NO. 5687 - FELIX E. EDQUIBAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER, JR..R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, his failure to timely file the required appellants brief resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The facts of this case clearly show that Respondent violated Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Undoubtedly, Respondents failure to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the interest of Complainant (Complainants mother) caused the latter material prejudice. It should be remembered that the moment a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise due diligence or abandons his clients cause makes him unworthy of the trust reposed in him by the latter. x x x Atty. Villadolid recommended to the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be reprimanded for failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing the cause of complainant; and that respondent be directed to return the amount of P2,000.00 as and by way of restitution to complainant. In its Resolution No. XVI-2004-383 dated July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Atty. Villadolid, thus: RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of the Resolution as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering the respondents failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing the cause of complainant, Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr., is hereby REPRIMANDED and Ordered to Return the amount of P2,000,00 by way of Restitution to complainant. [3] We sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the penalty recommended. Records show that respondent was the counsel of record for the appellants, complainants mother and other relatives in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2000 clearly states that the notice sent to counsel for defendants-appellants requiring him to file appellants brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof, was received by him on March 16, 2000. [4] However, respondent failed to file the appellants brief despite receipt of such notice. Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides: SEC. 2. Counsel and guardians . The counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals . When others appear or are appointed, notice thereof shall be served immediately on the adverse party and filed with the court. If it were true that respondent did not agree to represent the appellants in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019, why did he not file with the Court of Appeals a motion to withdraw as their counsel? Obviously, his negligence, which resulted in the dismi