Nonato v. Fudolin

Facts:

The father of the complainant, the late Restituto Nonato, was the owner of real property at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The property became a subject of ejectment proceedings before the MTC of Hinigaran. Restituto was represented by Atty. Garcia but was replaced by Atty. Fudolin during the pre-trial stage. The complainant alleged that Restituto paid the respondent his acceptance fees but no formal retainer agreement was executed and did not issue any receipts for the acceptance fees paid. The respondent alleged that he received the minimal acceptance fee of P20,000 and appearance fee of P1,000, and that he engaged his services to Restituto because they were relatives. During the pendency of the case he failed to inform Restituto of the status and developments in the case, Restituto could not contact him, and he failed to furnish Restituto copies of the pleadings, motions and other documents filed with the court. MTC dismissed Restituto’s complaint. Respondent filed 2 Motions for Reconsideration, both of which denied. He also averred that he was suffering from "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Intermittent, and Diabetes Mellitus Type II" and had an undetected stroke and arterial obstruction.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent could be held liable for negligence in the performance of duty.

Held:

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of IBP except for the recommended penalty. The respondent has been remiss in the performance of his duties as Restituto's counsel and his alibis were unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. Respondent is then suspended for 2 years for violating Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18, and Canon 17 of the Code. He is also warned that the commission of similar acts will be dealt more severely and is directed to formally Manifest to the Court the date of receipt which shall be the starting point of his suspension.