DAGALA V. ATTY.

QUESADA
A.C. No. 5044, December 2, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS: The case is about an administrative complaint by Felipe Dagala

(Complainant) against Atty. Jose Quesada and Atty. Amado Adquilen
(Respondents), charging them for gross negligence in handling his labor
complaints. Complainant was assisted first by Atty. Quesada in the NLRC Case
No. RAB-I-11-1123-94 on November 8, 1994. However, the said case was
dismissed for failure of complainant and Atty. Quesada to appear during the 2
scheduled mandatory conference hearings despite due notice. Thus, complainant
engaged the services of Atty. Adquilen, who re-filed the case. Likewise, it was
dismissed for the failure to submit their position papers. On August 7, 1996, Atty.
Adquilen re-filed the case for the third time. During its pendency, Capitol, the
party in the said case, allegedly offered the amount of Php 74,000.00 as settlement
of complainant’s claim, conditioned on the submission of the position paper.
However, Atty. Adquilen failed to submit such which resulted to the dismissal of
the case.

Consequently, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, with a certain Atty.

Picar as his counsel. Unfortunately, it was also dismissed. Thereafter, Atty. Picar
sent letters to Atty. Quesada and Atty. Adquilen to inform them of the
complainant’s intent to pursue administrative cases against them. As a response to
this, Atty. Quesada entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) stating that
he shall compensate the damages sustained by the complainant in consideration of
the non-filing of the administrative complaint against him. However, Atty.
Quesada, defaulted in his promise. Thus, complainant proceeded with the
complaint.

On June 21, 1999, the Court directed respondents to comment on the Complaint, to
which Atty. Adquilen failed to comply with. On the other hand, Atty. Quesada sent
his Comment and explained himself therein. Atty. Quesada reasoned that the only
reason why he signed the MoA was because he feared that he will lose his means
of livelihood and license to practice law, and he had no intention of reneging his
promise to pay. In the Court Resolution dated March 27, 2006, the Court referred
the case to the IBP.

On August 25, 2006, the IBP-CBD set the case for mandatory conference and
required the parties to submit their respective briefs. Respondents filed separate
motions to reset, but subsequently waived their respective appearances. Atty.
Adquilen, waived such because of his medical condition. On the other hand, Atty.
Quesada denied the existence of any lawyer-client relationship between him and
complainant. On March 25, 2009, the IBP Commissioner issued a Report and
Recommendation finding that respondents were grossly negligent in handling the
complainant’s case. Thus, he recommended that each of them be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of 1 year. Further, Atty. Quesada was directed to
comply with his undertaking under the MoA; while Atty. Adquilen was ordered to
pay the difference between the settlement offered by the Capitol.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation. Further, it directed respondents to pay complainant the total
amount of Php 74,000.00. In the Court Resolution dated September 12, 2012, the
Court sent notices to the parties. However, the notice sent to Atty. Adquilen was
returned with the notation “Return to Sender, Deceased”. On August 30, 2013, the
IBP, in compliance with the Court’s order, attached Atty. Adquilen’s Death
Certificate which indicated that he died due to cardiac arrythmia. In view of this,
the Court dismissed the case against him. Thus, what is left is the complaint
against Atty. Quesada.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Quesada should be held administratively liable for
gross negligence in handling complainant’s labor case

RULING: The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP. However,
the recommendation for the return of the Php 74,000.00 is deleted. The Court has
repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one
imbued with utmost trust and confidence. The lawyer is required to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill,
and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it
for a fee or for free. In the present case, the Court finds Atty. Quesada to have
violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.1 of Canon 10, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03
of Canon 18. Primarily, Atty. Quesada failed to exercise the required diligence by
his failure to justify his absence on the 2 mandatory conference hearings, which
resulted to the dismissal of the case. Such failure exhibits his inexcusable lack of
care and diligence in managing his client’s cause. Moreover, Atty. Quesada acted
with less candor and good faith when he denied the existence of any lawyer-client
relationship between him and complainant, and claimed that the labor case was
handled by another lawyer. A perusal of the complaint reveals that he actually
signed the same as counsel for complainant.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Quesada is found guilty, and is accordingly suspended from
the practice of law for 1 year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely