SC: 3-year suspension from practice due to lawyer's gross negligence, dishonesty
In administrative complaints against lawyers, the Supreme Court has exercised
its discretion on what penalty to impose on the basis of the facts of the case.
In case of lawyer's failure to file a brief or other pleading, the Supreme
Court had imposed penalties ranging from reprimand, warning with fine,
suspension, and in aggravated cases, disbarment.[1]
In Olvida v.
Atty. Gonzales,[2] the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of
Governors imposed a four-month suspension from the practice of law on the
respondent for his
negligence in filing the required position paper. The established facts, however, show that the respondent was not only grossly
negligent in the performance of his duties as the complainant's lawyer; he was
also downright dishonest and unethical in his dealings with the complainant, an
aspect of the case glossed over during the IBP investigation.
For the injury he caused to the complainant and his family because of his malpractice, the respondent must be made to suffer the commensurate penalty, despite the fact that there was no motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution. In this light, the Supreme Court deemed a three-year suspension from the practice of law an appropriate penalty for the respondent's gross negligence and dishonesty in his handling of the complainant's tenancy case.
In Olvida v.
Atty. Gonzales,[2] the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of
Governors imposed a four-month suspension from the practice of law on the
respondent for his
negligence in filing the required position paper. The established facts, however, show that the respondent was not only grossly
negligent in the performance of his duties as the complainant's lawyer; he was
also downright dishonest and unethical in his dealings with the complainant, an
aspect of the case glossed over during the IBP investigation.For the injury he caused to the complainant and his family because of his malpractice, the respondent must be made to suffer the commensurate penalty, despite the fact that there was no motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution. In this light, the Supreme Court deemed a three-year suspension from the practice of law an appropriate penalty for the respondent's gross negligence and dishonesty in his handling of the complainant's tenancy case.
[1] Supra note 28, at 7-8, citing Vda. De Orbiana v. Gerio, A.C. No.
1582, February 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 586; Basas v. Icawat, A.C. No. 4282, August
24, 2000, 338 SCRA 648; Rabanal v. Tugade, A.C. No. 1372, June 27, 2002, 383
SCRA 484; and Mariveles v. Mallari, A.C. No. 3294, February 7, 1993.
[2] A.C. No. 5732, June 16, 2015.
[2] A.C. No. 5732, June 16, 2015.