Ramsical V. Orro [miranda].docx

Ramsical v. Orro A.C. No. 10945 – February 23, 2016 J. Bersamin Topic: Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Petitioners: Angelito Ramsical and Mercedes Orzame Respondent: Atty. Edgar S. Orro FACTS:  Spouses Angelito Ramsical and Mercedes Orzame (Ramsicals) hired Atty. Edgar S. Orro (Atty. Orro) to handle their case wherein they were the defendants seeking the declaration of the nullity of title to a parcel of land located in the Province of Isabela.  The Ramsicals paid Atty. Orro a P10,000 acceptance fee. The RTC decided the case in their favor.  The plaintiffs in the said case appealed to the CA. Atty. Orro asked for an additional P30,000 for the preparation and submission of the Ramsicals’ appellees’ brief in the CA. The Ramsicals paid him said amount.  The CA reversed the RTC. However, Atty. Orro did not inform the Ramsicals of this adverse decision—they only found out about it from their neighbors.  The Ramsicals tried to communicate with Atty. Orro, but to no avail. When they finally reached him, he asked for an additional P7,000 as a fee for filing an MFR on their behalf, albeit telling them that the motion would already be belated. Still, the Ramsicals paid him the said amount.  Later, the Ramsicals discovered that Atty. Orro did not file the MFR. Hence, the CA decision attained finality, resulting in the loss of their 8.479-hectare property worth around P3,391,600.  The Ramsicals filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Orro  Referred to the IBP.  Findings and Recommendation of the IBP: o The Ramsicals and Atty. Orro did not appear during the scheduled mandatory conferences set by the IBP, despite due notice. Neither did they submit their respective evidence. o IBP Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda found that Atty. Orro violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR, and recommended that he be suspended for 1 year. o October 11, 2014: The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP Commissioner Almeyda’s report, but modified the penalty by increasing the suspension to 2 years.  Reason: Atty. Orro’s violation of Canon 18 of the CPR was aggravated by his disregard of the notices from the Commission plus the extent of the damage suffered by the Ramsicals. ISSUE + HELD: W/N Atty. Orro competently and diligently discharged his duties as the Ramsicals’ lawyer – NO  Atty. Orro violated his Lawyer’s Oath, hence, violating Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the CPR.  An essential part of a lawyer and client’s highly fiduciary relationship is that the client is entitled to periodic and full updates from his lawyer on the developments of his case. o If a lawyer neglects to perform his obligations  he violates Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR.  Atty. Orro failed to discharge his professional and ethical burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with all good fidelity to his clients. o Atty. Orro went back on his commitment when he didn’t file the MFR in behalf of the Ramsicals despite receiving the P7,000 he requested from them for that purpose.

o





He further neglected to regularly update them on the status of the case, particularly on the adverse result, thereby leaving them in the dark on the proceedings that were gradually turning against their interest. o Updating the Ramsicals could’ve prevented their substantial prejudice by allowing them to engage another competent lawyer to handle their case. o Due to his neglect, the Ramsicals lost whatever legal remedies were available to them then. o His various omissions manifested his utter lack of professionalism towards them. Furthermore, Atty. Orro’s unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment and to appear in the administrative investigation of his misconduct revealed his irresponsibility as well as his disrespect for the IBP. o His being a lawyer demands that he conduct himself as a person of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings with others. o His duty to serve his clients with unwavering loyalty and diligence carries with it the corresponding responsibilities towards the Court, the Bar, and the public in general. A lawyer is guilty of misconduct enough to justify his suspension or disbarment if he so acts as to be unworthy of the trust and confidence involved in his official oath and is found to be wanting in that honesty and integrity that must characterize the members of the Bar in the performance of their professional duties. o Thus, the Court approves the IBP’s recommendation increasing Atty. Orro’s suspension to 2 years. o Although the Court imposed a 6-month suspension on lawyers violating Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR, the recommended penalty of 2 years is proportionate to the offense charged and established because his display of disrespectful defiance of the orders of the IBP aggravated his misconduct.

RULING: Atty. Edgar S. Orro is GUILTY of violating Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO YEARS EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE, with the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.