PRUDENCIO B. PORTUGUESE, JR VS. ATTY. JERRY R. CENTRO

 [ A.C. No. 12875, January 26, 2021 ]

HERNANDO, J.:

Disposition:    WHEREFORE, for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Jerry R. Centro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Centro was complainant Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr.'s (Portuguese) counsel in Civil Case No. 717 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Surigao City. Atty. Centro drafted and filed the Answer to the Complaint. Portuguese alleged that at the termination of the proceedings, the parties were required to file their memoranda. After several follow-ups, respondent informed Portuguese that the memorandum was already filed in court. However, on January 25, 2018, to his and his family's shock, Portuguese was served a copy of a Notice by a sheriff, giving them three days to comply with the Writ of Execution in connection with the civil case. Apparently, this was the first time that Portuguese learned of the rendition of a judgment in the said case.

Portuguese claimed that Atty. Centro received a copy of the RTC's July 10, 2017 Decision on August 10, 2017 but the latter never advised him about it. Moreover, Atty. Centro did not file any pleading to appeal or question the RTC's Decision. Worse, Portuguese discovered that Atty. Centro did not actually file a Memorandum contrary to the latter's representation. Portuguese asserted that Atty. Centro also failed to do the following: file any pleading to contest the Motion for Execution; notify him of the scheduled hearing on the Motion for Execution; and inform him about the trial court's resolution granting the Motion for Execution. Lastly, Portuguese averred that respondent is facing other administrative charges, specifically A.C. No. 11421 entitled "Emilie A. Lao v. Atty. Jerry R. Centro" and another one supposedly filed by Atty. Centro's spouse.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent is liable for suspension.

RULING

The Lawyer's Oath mandates every lawyer to conduct himself/herself according to the best of his/her knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his/her clients. Atty. Centro unfortunately departed from his sworn oath by committing the following acts: 1) failing to file a Memorandum and even misrepresenting about filing it; 2) failing to inform Portuguese of the RTC's Decision; 3) failing to protect Portuguese's interest against the adverse RTC's Decision; 4) failing to inform Portuguese of the Motion for Execution, the scheduled hearing, and the resolution granting the said motion; and 5) failing to file an Answer to the instant Complaint. Worse, when Portuguese confronted him about the deliberate lapses concerning the civil case, the latter merely replied that there was nothing more he could do and that he was giving up the case for good. Considering the foregoing, Atty. Centro is undoubtedly guilty of violating the following provisions of the CPR, to wit:

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

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.

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 the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Atty. Centro's unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of his client's cause violated the Lawyer's Oath as well as the CPR. He casually set aside a legal matter that was entrusted to him and which deserved his full attention and diligence. He was grossly negligent of his duty as counsel and was manifestly disinterested in his client's cause. He must be reminded that as a lawyer, he "is duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion. This is because a lawyer owes fidelity to his client's cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him."