Ramiscal v. Orro

Facts:

Complainants engaged in the legal services of respondent to handle a case in which they were defendants seeking the declaration of nullity of title to a parcel of land in Isabela. Respondent received P10,000 acceptance fee from them and handled the trial of their case until RTC decided in their favor. Plaintiffs appeals to the CA to which the respondent requested from the complainants an additional P30,000 for the preparation and submission of their appellee’s brief in the CA. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC but the respondent did not inform the complainants. They had trouble communicating with respondent. When they finally reached him, he requested for an additional P7,000 as fee for filing a motion for reconsideration which he did not file. Complainants lost their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth of P3,391,600.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent may be suspended from the practice of law due to his gross misconduct.

Held:

While complainants and respondent did not appear during the mandatory conferences set by IBP, the IBP found that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 of the Code. The Court agreed with the IBP’s findings that respondent did not competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of Ramiscals. The Court believes that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath which contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18. He failed to discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with all good fidelity to his clients and his unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment and to appear in the administrative investigation of his conduct revealed his irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP.