FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12145. March 13, 2019.]
SPS. ZENAIDA D. COLLADO & SABAS C. COLLADO, JR., petitioners, vs.ATTY. DENNIS C. PANGAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12145 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4611] (Sps. Zenaida D. Collado & Sabas C. Collado, Jr. v. Atty. Dennis C. Pangan). — A lawyer has the duty to diligently protect and advance a client's legitimate rights and claims. This includes the obligation to inform the client of any adverse decision so the latter could decide whether to seek appellate review.
This is a verified complaint 1 against respondent Atty. Dennis C. Pangan (respondent) for gross unethical practice and conduct, gross negligence, and grave misconduct before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD).
Complainants Spouses Zenaida D. Collado and Sabas C. Collado, Jr. (complainants) allege that they engaged respondent's services in 2008 to file an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 07-0395) against a certain Hermogenes Galang with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sta. Ana-Candaba, Pampanga. Civil Case No. 07-0395 was dismissed on grounds unknown to complainants. They only learned about the dismissal after they personally inquired from the MTC. Thereafter, complainants requested respondent to file an appeal, to which the latter agreed in consideration of a higher acceptance fee. 2
Instead of appealing the case as instructed by complainants, respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 13700) on August 9, 2009 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in San Fernando City, Pampanga. When complainants inquired from respondent about the status of the case, the latter informed them that they won the case; and demanded additional attorney's fees. Complainants tried to set appointments with respondent to get hold of a copy of the decision, but to no avail. This prompted complainants to inquire directly from the RTC. To their surprise, they learned that the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 13700 due to lack of jurisdiction. 3
Complainants aver that they also engaged respondent's services for purposes of filing a falsification case against their co-heir. Respondent, however, failed to file the said case. 4
In his answer, 5 respondent claims that: (1) he agreed to render legal services to complainants for a minimum acceptance fee; (2) despite the low pay, he won most of the cases for complainants; (3) although one of their cases was dismissed, he decided not to appeal the dismissal as a matter of legal strategy; (4) in any case, the dismissal did not prejudice complainants as he still plans to re-file the case; and (5) he was not retained to file falsification case, as in fact, no documents relating to the same were ever transmitted to him.
After the parties filed their respective position papers, 6 Investigating Commissioner Erwin L. Aguilera (Commissioner Aguilera) of the IBP recommended that respondent be suspended for six months for being remiss in his duties and responsibilities as a member of the legal profession. Commissioner Aguilera found that respondent: (1) did not inform his clients of the outcome of Civil Case No. 07-0395; (2) misrepresented to his clients that a favorable decision was issued in Civil Case No. 13700; and (3) did not file a motion for reconsideration or appeal in both cases. Respondent, therefore, failed to exert all efforts to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect his clients' cause. 7
In a Resolution No. XXII-2017-1162, 8 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of Commissioner Aguilera.
We affirm the IBP's recommendation. Respondent violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read:
Canon 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he or she should undertake the task with dedication and care. Every case, regardless of importance, deserves full attention and diligence from the handling lawyer. 9 Relatedly, a lawyer is obligated to inform his or her client of any important information affecting the client's case to enable the latter to decide whether to seek appellate review thereof. 10
Whether the respondent won several cases for complainants or had collected minimal professional fees from them is irrelevant in this case. The complaint is based on respondent's failure to handle Civil Case Nos. 07-0395 and 13700 diligently, and his failure to file the required falsification complaint.
With respect to Civil Case Nos. 07-0395 and 13700, we find that respondent fell short of his obligation to his clients. First, respondent failed to inform complainants of the adverse ruling in the two cases. Second, he failed to appeal the dismissal of the cases to the prejudice of his clients.
We do not, however, find him negligent for the non-filing of the falsification case. Complainants failed to prove that respondent agreed to handle this concern for them.
Thus, We likewise adopt the IBP's recommended penalty for being in accordance with existing jurisprudence. In Penilla v. Alcid, 11 We imposed a penalty of six-month suspension against a lawyer who committed procedural blunders causing prejudice to his client, and who failed to update his client of the status of the case. The same penalty was likewise imposed upon the respondent in Caranza Vda. deSaldivar v. Cabanes, Jr.12 There, respondent failed to: (i) justify his absence during a scheduled preliminary conference hearing; and (ii) inform his client about an adverse ruling, which omission precluded his client from availing any further remedies. In both cases, we found the respective respondents in violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to SUSPEND Atty. Dennis C. Pangan from the practice of law for a period of SIX MONTHS from notice hereof, with a WARNING that a repetition of any of the infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be spread on respondent's record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and furnish the IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator for proper dissemination to all courts.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 2-3, 26-27.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id. at 38-43.
6.Id. at 61-66; 69-78.
7.Id. at 87-95.
8.Id. at 85.
9.Rollon v. Naraval, A.C. No. 6424, March 4, 2045, 452 SCRA 675, 680-682.
10.Layos v. Villanueva, A.C. No. 8085, December 1, 2014, 743 SCRA 334, 340.
11. A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 1.
12. A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013, 700 SCRA 734.