WARRINER v DUBLIN

ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of gross negligence dereliction of duty.

FACTS: Warriner (Petitioner) secured the services of Atty. Dublin

(Respondent) as his counsel in the case, Aurora Warriner and George
Warriner v EB Villarosa and Partner. Respondent did not submit any pleading
nor file any opposition. RTC dismissed the previous case in favor of EB
Villarosa. No comment has been filed by respondent after a lapse of two
years.

HELD: YES. Respondent violated CPR. Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 A lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence; A lawyer shall neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him.. His justification of his failure to timely file
motions, saying that the exhibits were fabricated is improper. He should have
withdrawn from the case if he truly believes such exhibits were fabricated
(Canon 22). Respondent was sternly warned and was ordered a 6-month
suspension from the practice of law.

A resolution by the court was ignored by Atty. Dublin requiring him to submit
an explanation of his failure to file any comment. On March 2008, the court
ordered his arrest and detention. Thereafter, respondent filed his comment.
Respondent contended that he failed to file because he lost his clients
records; that he tried to get a copy from the RTC, but to no avail. He alleged
that the Warriner spouses got married as a convenient scheme for George
Warriner, a foreigner, to stay in the country. That he rendered his services
FREE of charge. That he doubted claims of his client and that he was
threatened by Warriner with a disbarment suit. Lastly, respondent averred
that if he withdrew, petitioner would only hire another lawyer to perpetrate his
fraudulent scheme.
In 2008, a resolution found the comment and explanation of respondent NOT
satisfactory. The case was elevated to IBP for investigation. Both parties then
submitted their position papers.
Petitioner contended that respondent mishandled the case before RTC by
filing late and contradicted respondents claim, asserting that petitioner paid
for his services.
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent, Atty. Dublin guilty in
violation of CPR and suspended him from the practice of law for six months.
IBP Board of Governors affirmed the decision of the Commissioner and
ordered a 1-year suspension. Respondent and Petitioner moved for
reconsideration.
On May 6, 2013, respondent filed a Court Ex Parte Manifestation insisting
that his failure to timely file does not defy courts directing but is only a
human expression of frustration

CABAUATAN v VENIDA
FACTS: Cabauatan (Petitioner) filed a disbarment case against Atty. Venida
(Respondent) for gross, reckless and inexcusable negligence. Respondent
was petitioners counsel in a case wherein petitioner made several follow-ups
on her case until he lost contact with respondent. No pleading and further
actions were made by respondent to protect the rights and interest of his
client.
The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent has not been diligent
and competent in handling the case. Respondent disregarded the orders of
IBP when he failed to file his Position Paper and when he failed to attend the
mandatory conference, while his client, being a 78-yr old woman, still
managed to attend such conference. The Commissioner recommended a 1year suspension which was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Venida is guilty of gross misconduct and neglect of duty
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP Board of
Governors, stating that respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR,
as well as Rules 18.04 and 18.04 of the same code. Atty. Venida failed to
protect the rights of his client and disregarded to inform his client about the
status of the case. According to the Court, it is unbecoming of a lawyer to fail
to heed to the orders of the IBP because as an officer of court, one must
know that a resolution is not a mere request but an order which must be
complied with promptly and completely. He was suspended from the practice
of law for one year.