Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81806:a-c-no-7944,-june-03,-2013-rex-polinar-dagohoy,-complainant,-v-atty-artemio-v-san-juan,-respondents&catid=1571&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:58:12+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 7944, June 03, 2013 - REX POLINAR DAGOHOY, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN JUAN, Respondents.
REX POLINAR DAGOHOY, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN JUAN, Respondents.
The complainant and Atty. San Juan did not file a motion for reconsideration against Resolution No. XIX-2011-305 dated May 15, 2011. The IBP thereafter submitted its findings to the Court.
Except for the recommended penalty, we adopt the findings of the IBP.
In Dalisay Capili v. Atty. Alfredo L. Bentulan,16 we held that the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. In this case, Atty. San Juan’s negligence in handling his client’s appeal was duly established by the records and by his own admission. We cannot accept as an excuse the alleged lapse committed by his client in failing to provide him a copy of the case records.
In the first place, securing a copy of the case records was within Atty. San Juan’s control and is a task that the lawyer undertakes. We note that Atty. San Juan received a notice dated April 19, 200517 from CA Clerk of Court Beverly S. Beja informing him that the case records were already complete and at his disposal for the preparation of the brief.
Second, Atty. San Juan, unlike his client, knows or should have known, that filing an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period is critical in the perfection of an appeal. In this case, Atty. San Juan was directed to file an appellant’s brief within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice dated April 19, 2005 sent by CA Clerk of Court Beja.
The preparation and the filing of the appellant’s brief are matters of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of Atty. San Juan. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the perfection of his client’s appeal.
Third, the records also disclose Atty. San Juan’s lack of candor in dealing with his client. He omitted to inform Tomas of the progress of his appeal with the CA.18 Worse, he did not disclose to Tomas the real reason for the CA’s dismissal of the appeal.19 Neither did Atty. San Juan file a motion for reconsideration to address the CA’s order of dismissal, or otherwise resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his client’s interest.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
"It is a fundamental rule of ethics that ‘an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.’"20 It was Atty. San Juan’s bounden duty to see his cases through until proper completion; he could not abandon or neglect them in midstream,21 in the way he did with the complainant’s case.
In light of these considerations, we find the IBP’s recommended penalty of three (3) months suspension from the practice of law not commensurate to the gravity of the infractions committed; as described above, these infractions warrant the imposition of a stiffer sanction. We take into account the following acts, omissions, and consequence attendant to Atty. San Juan’s inadequacies: first, the negligence in handling his client’s appeal; second, his failure to act candidly and effectively in communicating information to his client; and more importantly, third, the serious and irreparable consequence of his admitted negligence which deprived his client of legal remedies in addressing his conviction.
In Pineda v. Atty. Macapagal,22 we imposed a one (1) year suspension from the practice of law on a lawyer who, like Atty. San Juan, had been found guilty of gross negligence in handling his client’s case. With this case as the norm, we hold that Atty. San Juan should be meted a suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law for his negligence and inadequacies in handling his client’s case.
DENY the motion filed by Atty. Artemio V. San Juan in the letter dated August 28, 2012 that he be allowed to return to the practice of law.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to all courts. The Office of the Bar Confidant is instructed to include a copy of this Decision in Atty. San Juan’s file.
Del Castillo, Perez, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen,** JJ., concur.
* In lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order No. 1460 dated May 29, 2013.
** Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 1461 dated May 29, 2013.
4 Docketed as Crim. Case No. 99-12; id. at 9-14.
16 A.C. No. 5862; through an extended resolution dated October 12, 2011.
18 Affidavit of Merit dated January 24, 2008 of Tomas and Affidavit–Complaint dated November 14, 2007 of the complainant; id. at 15-16 and 27-28, respectively.
20Zarate-Bustamante v. Atty. Libatique, 418 Phil. 249, 255 (2001).
22 512 Phil. 668, 672 (2005).
23 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 15.
24 Lourdes Corres v. Atty. Juan A. Abaya, Jr., A.C. No. 2983; through an extended Resolution dated February 29, 2012.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.