D. DIGEST - Olvida vs. Atty. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5732, June 16, 2015

2-D Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 5732 June 16, 2015
ALFREDO C. OLVIDA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ARNEL C. GONZALES, Respondent.
The administrative case began with Alfredo C. Olvida’s complaint against Atty.
Arnel C. Gonzales, who was accused of intentional negligence for failing to submit a
crucial position paper in Olvida's case before the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Davao City. Olvida, who had engaged Gonzales in
November 2000 to handle a case against a tenant for non-payment of rent and neglect
of property, provided all necessary documents to Gonzales by March 2001. Despite
repeated inquiries, Olvida discovered in December 2001 that Gonzales had not filed
the position paper, leading to the case’s dismissal for lack of merit.
Following the dismissal, Olvida terminated Gonzales's services and engaged

another lawyer to file a motion for reconsideration. Gonzales, who had been fined by
the Court for non-compliance with show cause resolutions over the years, finally
submitted his comment in March 2010, claiming the accusations were unfounded and
asserting that the failure to file the position paper was not critical. He argued that the
complainant's dissatisfaction was due to personal disagreements and failures in
providing necessary evidence, rather than negligence on his part.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which
found Gonzales negligent for not submitting the position paper, contrary to the
complainant's claims that the paper was dispensable. IBP recommended a four-month
suspension from practice, which the IBP Board of Governors approved on February
13, 2013. By October 7, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline confirmed that
no further motions for reconsideration had been filed, concluding the disciplinary
proceedings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales committed intentional negligence by

failing to submit the complainant’s position paper in the case before the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), thereby warranting disciplinary
action.
RULING:
Except for the penalty imposed on the respondent, we find the IBP Board of
Governors' Resolution No. XX-2013-164 well-founded in law and in fact.
The respondent, Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales, is liable as charged. He grossly

violated Canon 1 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A LA
WYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
The complainant had all the reasons to terminate the respondent's

services and to have him disciplined for his patent neglect of duty as lawyer. As
the records show, the respondent gave the complainant the run-around for an
unreasonably long period of time; the latter had to repeatedly inquire about and
follow up the filing of the position paper in the DARAB case. On the matter alone
of keeping complainant posted on the status of the case, the respondent failed
to comply with his duty under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 that "a lawyer shall keep the
client informed of the status of the case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client's request for information."
The deadline for the filling of the position paper had come and gone, but the
complainant was still trying to get information from the respondent and from his office
on the matter. Inexplicably, at so late a period for the filing of the position paper and
without even asking for extension to file the pleading, the respondent remained
unavailable until the complainant's receipt of a copy of the DARAB decision dismissing
the case for lack of merit due to the respondent's failure to file a position paper.
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that "A LA

WYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Accordingly, Rule 18.02 mandates that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable." As the Court said in Biomi Sarenas-Ochagabia v. Atty. Balmes L.
Ocampos:28 "A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the
responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. By failing
to file appellant's brief, respondent was remiss in the discharge of such
responsibility. He thus violated the Code of Professional Responsibility."
Also, in In Re: Atty. David Briones, we held that the failure of the counsel
to submit the required brief within the reglementary period is an offense that
entails disciplinary action. x x x His failure to file an appellant's brief x x x has
caused the appeal to remain inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of
his client, the accused himself, who continues to languish in jail pending the
resolution of his case.
The respondent is no less responsible than the two erring lawyers in the above-
cited cases for his failure to file the position paper in the DARAB case, which caused
complainant and his family so much grief, considering, as complainant lamented, that
they suffered emotional shock, heartaches, and sleepless nights because of the
expenses they had incurred that aggravated their longstanding problems with their
tenant.31
Further, the respondent kept to himself his receipt of a copy of the

DARAB's adverse decision which he received even before the complainant
received his own. This failure to communicate was downright dishonest and
unethical and cannot but aggravate the respondent's inexcusable neglect in not
filing a position paper in the case. It also showed the respondent's gross lack of
professionalism in dealing with his client; worse than this, his office, through
his secretary, had even made the complainant believe that the position paper
had already been filed.
We cannot, and should not, tolerate the respondent's lack of commitment

to and genuine concern for the complainant's cause, for it puts the practice of
law in a very bad light. He should be made to answer, not only for his negligence
in the handling of the complainant's case before the DARAB, but also for his
dishonest and unethical dealings in this case.
The respondent tried to evade liability by shifting the blame on the complainant
for the non-filing of the position paper.1âwphi1 He claimed that the complainant
refused to provide him with the documentary evidence he needed and to follow his
advice on how the case should proceed. For instance, he averred that had the
documentary evidence been attached to the complaint, the filing of the position paper
could have been dispensed with.
We are appalled at the respondent's boldness in saying that his failure to
file the position paper in the tenancy case was due to the complainant's fault.
He lost sight of the fact that he was engaged by the complainant to plead his
case in the tenancy dispute in the way he (respondent) believed the case should
be handled, not in any other way. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility,
a lawyer "shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case."32 Thus, we cannot accept his lame excuse that the complainant failed to
provide him with the documents he needed in the preparation of the position
paper and that he and the complainant had a difference of opinion on how the
case should be handled. Notably, even the Investigator recognized that the
complainant submitted documents to the respondent; whatever was lacking
could not be submitted as the complainant could not even contact the
respondent despite repeated attempts.
In short, the respondent should have acted as a lawyer in the case, not as a
mere agent waiting for the complainant's instructions. He should not have wasted
several months doing nothing about the position paper he knew had to be filed as
required by the DARAB Adjudicator. He should not have lied to the complainant
making him believe that he was doing his work as his lawyer and that he had already
filed the position paper. He should not have made himself scarce and kept the
complainant in the dark on the status of the case. Before the time for filing lapsed, he
should have been candid enough to tell the complainant that he could not file the
required position paper and that it was time for him to engage another lawyer. This is
the honorable thing to do under the circumstances, for a lawyer worthy of his license.
The appropriate penalty for respondent's case
In administrative complaints against lawyers, the Court has exercised its

discretion on what penalty to impose on the basis of the facts of the case. Thus,
for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other pleading, the Court had imposed
penalties ranging from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension, and in
aggravated cases, disbarment.33
In the present case, the 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, we deem 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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Amel C. Gonzales is

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years, effective upon finality of this
decision, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more
severely. Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales is DIRECTED to formally MANIFEST to this Court,
upon receipt of this Decision, the date of his receipt which shall be the starting point
of his suspension. He shall furnish a copy of this Manifestation to all the courts and
quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.

D. DIGEST - Olvida vs. Atty. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5732, June 16, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. DIGEST - Olvida vs. Atty. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5732, June 16, 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. DIGEST - Olvida vs. Atty. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5732, June 16, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2-D Republic of the Philippines

A.C. No. 5732 June 16, 2015

ALFREDO C. OLVIDA, Complainant,

Following the dismissal, Olvida terminated Gonzales's services and engaged

Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales committed intentional negligence by

The respondent, Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales, is liable as charged. He grossly

The complainant had all the reasons to terminate the respondent's

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that "A LA

Further, the respondent kept to himself his receipt of a copy of the

We cannot, and should not, tolerate the respondent's lack of commitment

The appropriate penalty for respondent's case

In administrative complaints against lawyers, the Court has exercised its

In the present case, the IBP Board of Governors imposed a four-month

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Amel C. Gonzales is

You might also like