A.C. No.

12072, December 09, 2020 ]

NAPOLEON S. QUITAZOL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. HENRY S. CAPELA,
RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

Napoleon S. Quitazol (Napoleon) engaged the services of Atty. Henry S. Capela (Atty. Capela) in
a civil case for breach of contract and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Alaminos City, Pangasinan.3 In the retainer agreement, Atty. Capela indicated his office address at
Unit 1411, 14th Floor, Tower One & Exchange Plaza, Ayala Triangle 1, Ayala Avenue, Makati City.
As acceptance fee, Napoleon agreed to deliver to Atty. Capela the possession of his Toyota
Corolla GLI model, as well as its official receipt and certificate of registration.4 Atty. Capela
entered his appearance5 and filed an answer before the RTC.6 On February 12, 2014, a
preliminary conference was held and the opposing counsel manifested the possibility of a
compromise agreement, however, Atty. Capela was not present.7 The agreement was then set to
be heard on March 26,8 May 7,9 and August 6, 2014,10 but Atty. Capela failed to appear. Left
without a lawyer, Napoleon was constrained to agree to the Compromise Agreement,11 which
was approved by the RTC on August 19, 2014.12 Napoleon felt shortchanged with Atty. Capela's
non-appearance, thus, he demanded the return of the motor vehicle and P38,000.00,13 but
Atty. Capela did not yield.

Consequently, Napoleon instituted a Complaint14 before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) against Atty. Capela for violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR). Napoleon alleged that Atty. Capela's continued absence
during the hearings constitutes neglect of his duty to represent his client. Left without
counsel, he was forced to enter into an amicable settlement to his damage and prejudice.

The IBP-CBD required Atty. Capela to submit his answer with a warning that failure to do so would
render him in default, and the case shall be heard ex-parte. Atty. Capela did not file an answer.
Later, the parties were notified to appear for a mandatory conference on March 26, 2015. The notice
stated that non-appearance by any of the parties shall be deemed a waiver of their right to
participate in further proceedings.15 At the mandatory conference, only Napoleon
appeared.16 Thus, the IBP issued an Order17 noting Atty. Capela's failure to file an answer, and his
absence during the mandatory conference. He was declared in default and considered to have
waived his right to participate in further proceedings. Meantime, on April 30, 2015, Napoleon died
and was substituted by his brother Frank S. Quitazol.18

In a Report and Recommendation dated May 29, 2015,19 Investigating Commissioner Honesto A.
Villamor found Atty. Capela administratively liable and ruled that he failed to contradict the
allegations in the complaint. Atty. Capela's unjustified refusal to heed the directives of the
IBP – to file an answer, to appear at the mandatory conference, and to file a position paper –
constituted blatant disrespect amounting to conduct unbecoming a lawyer. The Commissioner
recommended that Atty. Capela be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six
months, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding Respondent Atty. Henry S. Capela guilty of Violating
Canon 18, 18.03, Canon 7, and Canon 11 x x x of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is
hereby recommended to be suspended for a period of six (6) months and to order him to return the
amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]200,000.00) the value of the car which was given to
him by the complainant within thirty (30) days and with a warning that repetition of the same or
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED[.]20

On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution that adopted and approved the
findings of administrative liability, but modified the recommended penalty of suspension, from six
months, to three years.21

Atty. Capela then filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration, denying that he served as
counsel to Napoleon. Atty. Capela admitted that a retainer agreement, with Napoleon was
drafted, but claimed that he did not receive a signed copy of the agreement nor any motor
vehicle as payment for his legal services. Moreover, the complaint has no longer a leg to
stand on, since Napoleon, through his substitute, issued an affidavit withdrawing the
administrative case.22 Anent the finding that he was guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, Atty.
Capela claimed that he was unaware of the complaint against him because he was no longer
holding office at Makati City, where all the notices were sent. He was only apprised of the
complaint when one Pacita Cala informed him of the assailed IBP Resolution.23 The IBP Board of
Governors denied Atty. Capela's motion for reconsideration.24

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Capela should be held administratively liable for neglecting his client's case and
refusing to comply with orders from the IBP.

Held:

We adopt the conclusion and findings of the IBP, but modify the penalty imposed.

There is an attorney-client relationship between Napoleon and Atty. Capela.

It cannot be overemphasized that the practice of law is a profession. It is a form of public trust, the
performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral
character.25 When a lawyer agrees to act as a counsel, he guarantees that he will exercise
that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he
undertakes to do, to protect the client's interests, and take all steps, or do all acts
necessary.26 Thus, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote their full attention, skill and competence to their cases, regardless
of their importance, and whether they accept them for a fee, or for free.27

In this case, the legal service of Atty. Capela was engaged by Napoleon to handle a civil case
before the RTC of Alaminos City, Pangasinan. Atty. Capela entered his appearance as
Napoleon's counsel, moved for extension of time, and filed an answer. Atty. Capela's
contention, that he did not receive a copy of the signed retainer agreement to prove an
attorney-client relationship, is not credible. He would not have undertaken to enter his
appearance, as well as, move for extension and file a pleading if he was not representing
Napoleon.

Moreover, a written contract or retainer agreement, is not an essential element in the employment of
an attorney; a contract may be express or implied. To establish a lawyer-client relationship, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter
pertinent to his profession,28 as in this case. Neither is the claim that no payment was received,
defeat the existence of the relationship. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid,
promised, or charged for, to constitute professional employment.29

Atty. Capela's failure to attend hearings constitutes negligence.

A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he
must be held administratively liable.30 From the perspective of ethics in the legal profession, a
lawyer's lethargy in carrying out his duties, is both unprofessional and unethical.31 Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the CPR embody this principle:

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Whenever lawyers take on their client's causes, they pledge to exercise due diligence in
protecting the client's rights. Their failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family makes them unworthy of the trust reposed in them by
their client and make them answerable to their client, the courts and society.32 Here, Atty.
Capela failed to exercise the required diligence in handling his client's cause. His failure to
attend, despite notice, the four scheduled hearings on February 12, March 26, May 7, and
August 6, 2014, constitutes inexcusable negligence. As the complainant's counsel of record, Atty.
Capela is responsible for the conduct of the case in all its stages. His duty of competence and
diligence includes not merely reviewing the case, and giving the client sound legal advice,
but also properly representing the client in court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing
and filing required pleadings, and prosecuting the case with reasonable dispatch, without
waiting for the client, or the court to prod him to do so. A lawyer should not sit idly by, and leave
the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.33 Clearly, Atty. Capela was unjustifiably remiss in his
duty as legal counsel to Napoleon.

The affidavit of withdrawal, executed by Napoleon's substitute does not excuse Atty. Capela's
negligence.

An affidavit of withdrawal or desistance does not terminate the disciplinary proceedings

against an errant lawyer. Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court state that "[n]o investigation
shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme
Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is
no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the
respondent."34 A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the interest or
lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne
out by the record, the charge of negligence has been duly proved.35 This rule is premised on
the nature of disciplinary proceedings,36 to wit:

[D]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal,
they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the
conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, it also involves neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor. It may be initiated by the
Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is
whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the
exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for
his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal
profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members
who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties
and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.37

Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that an affidavit of desistance is immaterial in

administrative proceedings. In Spouses Soriano v. Atty. Reyes,38 we suspended the lawyer for his
failure to file a pre-trial brief, notwithstanding an affidavit of withdrawal. Likewise, the respondent
lawyer in Angalan v. Atty. Delante,39 was disbarred, despite an affidavit of desistance, for taking
advantage of his clients and transferring the title of their property to his name. In Ylaya v. Atty.
Gacott40 the disciplinary case continued against the negligent lawyer although the complainant
moved to withdraw the complaint. Applying these precepts, Napoleon's affidavit of withdrawal neither
exonerates Atty. Capela nor puts an end to the administrative proceedings. The disciplinary case
against Atty. Capela thus proceeds.

Proper penalty imposed.

A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred, or suspended from his office as an attorney
for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied
in the CPR.41 The appropriate penalty for a negligent lawyer depends on the exercise of sound
judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. In several instances, the Court imposed upon
negligent lawyers a penalty of suspension of six months from the practice of law. In Caranza Vda. de
Saldivar,42 a lawyer was suspended for six months for his failure to file a pre-trial brief and attend
the scheduled preliminary conference. In Spouses Aranda v. Atty. Elayda,43 a six-month suspension
was also imposed when the respondent lawyer failed to appear in a scheduled hearing despite due
notice, which resulted in the submission of the case for decision. Likewise, in Penilla v. Atty. Alcid,
Jr.,44 the respondent lawyer's explanation that he failed to update his client of the status of the case
because their time did not always coincide was considered too flimsy an excuse, and the Court
accordingly suspended the lawyer for six months. We further held in Spouses Adecer v. Atty.
Akut,45 that an attorney's failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration, or an appeal, renders him
liable for negligence, which is penalized with suspension for six months. In Spouses Rabanal v. Atty.
Tugade,46 the lawyer who failed to file an appellant's brief before the CA despite being granted
extensions of time, was also suspended for six months. Following these precedents, we deem it just
and proper to suspend Atty. Capela from the practice of law for a period of six months.

In addition, Atty. Capela shall pay a fine of P5,000.00 for his repeated refusal to obey the orders of
the IBP directing him to file an answer to the complaint, to appear at the scheduled mandatory
conference, and to file a position paper.47 We cannot countenance Atty. Capela's reason that he
was improperly furnished of the complaint against him because the notices were sent to his former
office address in Makati City. An attorney owes it to himself to adopt an orderly system of receiving
mail matters,48 especially in this case when the lawyer changed his office address. Atty. Capela
should have instructed his former office to notify him of mail matters addressed to him or, at least, to
simply decline their receipt. Similarly, in Cabauatan v. Atty. Venida,49 the respondent lawyer was
declared guilty of disregarding the IBP's notices and orders when he did not file his answer and
position paper despite notice. He also disregarded the IBP's directives for him to attend the
mandatory conference. We held that:

Respondent's refusal to obey the orders of the IBP "is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes
utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for
lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand
foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court." Respondent
should be reminded that —

As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere
request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the
orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.

Respondent should strive harder to live up to his duties of observing and maintaining the respect
due to the courts, respect for law and for legal processes, and of upholding the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession in order to perform his responsibilities as a lawyer effectively.50 [Citations
omitted.]

FOR THE STATED REASONS, Atty. Henry S. Capela is found administratively liable for violation of
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective immediately upon respondent's receipt of this
Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same, or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.

Atty. Henry S. Capela is also meted a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00 for disobedience to the
orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. This payment shall be made within ten (10) days from
notice of this Resolution.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty.
Henry S. Capela's records. Copies shall likewise be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts throughout the country for their
information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.
 A.C. No. 13118. June 28, 2022 ]

MONICA M. PONTIANO, ROSALYN M. MATANDAG, ELSIE R. BALINGASA, CRISELDA J.

ESPINOZA, MIGUEL R. PANGLILINGAN, MARLON A. VILLA, AND LOUIE T. DELA CRUZ,
COMPLAINANTS VS. ATTY. FABIAN A. GAPPI, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

The complaint accuses the respondent of gross negligence, gross inefficiency in the
performance of duties and dishonesty based on the following allegations:2

1. Complainants are among the sixteen (16) complainants in an illegal dismissal case, docketed
as NLRC NCR Case No. 12-16403-13 and 01-00057-14, before the Labor Arbiter (LA). Respondent
was the counsel of complainants in that case.

2. Respondent failed to attend a single scheduled hearing of the illegal dismissal case.

3. Prior to 11 March 2014, which was the deadline for the submission of their position paper,
complainants went to respondent's office to inquire about the status of their position paper.
Respondent, however, merely told them, "Ako na ang bahala."

4. Respondent did not submit any position paper on 11 March 2014. Thus, on the same day,
complainants went to respondent's office again and asked that he withdraw as counsel for
them. Respondent then prepared a document that would supposedly formalize his withdrawal
as counsel and handed the same to complainants for their signature. Upon reading the
document, however, complainants discovered that the same speaks not of the withdrawal of
respondent as counsel but rather the withdrawal by complainants of their illegal dismissal
complaint. Hence, complainants did not sign the document.

5. Because of respondent's failure to file a position paper for complainants, the illegal dismissal
complaint was dismissed by the LA in a Decision3 dated 7 April 2014.

Respondent failed to file an answer to the administrative complaint as required by the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) in its Order,4 dated 5 September 2017.

On 2 March 2018, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference5 ordering

complainants and respondent to appear before the commission on 6 April 2018. Both complainants
and respondent, however failed to appear during the scheduled conference. Hence, the IBP-CBD
ordered a resetting of the mandatory conference on 1 June 2018.

Only complainants attended the mandatory conference on 1 June 2018. The respondent
did not.7 Thus, in an Order8 of even date, the IBP-CBD required complainants and respondent to
file their respective verified position papers within 15 days from their receipt of the said order.

Complainants filed their Position Paper9 on 13 June 2018. Respondent, however, did not file
any.

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In a Report and Recommendation10 dated 21 November 2018, the IBP-CBD found

respondent guilty of violations of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years.

On 15 February 2019, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) issued a Resolution11 adopting
the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD albeit with modifications: (a) increasing the period
of suspension from the practice of law to be suffered by the respondent to three (3) years, and (b)
adding a fine in the amount of ₱15,000.00 against the respondent for the latter's failure to attend the
mandatory conference and to file the required pleadings before the IBP-CBD.

On 27 September 2019, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration12 from the IBP-BOG
Resolution essentially asking for his absolution on the following grounds:

1. His failure to attend hearings and to submit the position paper in the illegal dismissal
case was due to complainants' indecisiveness on whether they want to replace him as their
counsel or not.

2. The long process of reading and evaluating evidence for all the 16 complainants of the
illegal dismissal case also contributed to his failure to submit the required position paper.

On 22 August 2020, the IBP-BOG issued Resolution No. CBD-2020-08-3613 denying

respondent's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this administrative case.

ISSUE:

 Whether the respondent is guilty of gross negligence, gross inefficiency, and dishonesty
in handling the illegal dismissal case.
 What is the appropriate penalty for the respondent's violations.

HELD:

The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD, as modified by the IBP-
BOG.

The established facts tell that respondent, as counsel of complainants in an illegal dismissal
case, failed to appear in any of the scheduled hearings for the said case. He also failed, despite
being reminded by his own clients, to file a position paper for them within the reglementary period.
Respondent also tried to deceive complainants when he presented for their signature a document
that stipulated their withdrawal of their illegal dismissal complaint, when what complainants
requested was merely a document to formalize respondent's withdrawal as their counsel. As a
consequence of respondent's actions or omissions, the illegal dismissal complaint was dismissed—
to the prejudice of complainants. Respondent never repudiated these facts and even implicitly
admitted them by the explanations he proffered in his motion for reconsideration.

The foregoing facts, to no controversy, speak of respondent's gross negligence and gross
inefficiency in the performance of his duty as counsel of complainants, as well as of his propensity to
disobey lawful processes of the LA. The facts also testify to respondent's dishonesty in his dealings
with complainants. We, therefore, agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD, as approved by the IBP-
BOG, that respondent should be administratively sanctioned for violation of Rule 18.03 of Canon 18,
Canon 11, and Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR. The IBP-CBD's exhaustive discussion on these
points bears repeating:

Lawyers bear the responsibility to meet the profession's exacting standards. A lawyer is
expected to live by the lawyer's oath, the rules of the profession and the [CPR]. The duties of
a lawyer may be classified into four general categories namely duties he owes to the court, to
the public, to the bar and to his client. A lawyer who transgresses any of his duties is
administratively liable and subject to the Court's disciplinary authority.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 provides:

Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the
opposite of negligence. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success is
eternal diligence to the cause of the client.

By failing to attend the scheduled hearing of his clients, [respondent failed to employ his
best efforts in the protection of his clients' interests. Due to [respondent's lack of diligence in
the performance of his duties as legal counsel, his clients gravely suffered and resulted to
the dismissal of their case.

xxxx

A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's
interest with utmost diligence. The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and
diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or
her client. Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the
management of the cases by giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation, is
expected from a lawyer.

Under the foregoing provisions, once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-
bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with
diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.
Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes
inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 11 provides:

Canon 11 -A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

xxxx
 By deliberately failing to attend the scheduled hearing ordered by the [LA], [r]espondent reflects
his willful disregard for [c]ourt orders putting in question his suitability to discharge his duties and
functions as a lawyer. Respondent's absence during the scheduled hearing is an obvious disregard
or refusal and disrespect to comply with the [c]ourt's orders.

When [r]espondent was admitted to the Bar, he also took an oath to "obey the laws," "do no
falsehood," and conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion.
In the facts of this case, [r]espondent clearly violated the canons and his sworn duty when he
deliberately misrepresented the documents he submitted to his clients for signature. Had
[c]omplainants failed to notice the false stipulations on the document presented by [r]espondent,
they would have been prejudiced and would have caused the withdrawal of their labor case.

To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be unworthy;
lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straight forwardness while
conduct that is "deceitful" means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation,
artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and
damage of the party imposed upon.

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR instructs that, as officers of the court, lawyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair
dealing. Indubitably, respondent fell short of such standard when [he] committed the [aforecited] acts
of deception against complainants. Such acts are not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and
dishonorable to the legal profession: they reveal basic moral flaws that make him unfit to practice
law.

When lawyers, in the performance of their duties, act in a manner that prejudices not only the
rights of their client, but also of their colleagues and offends due administration of justice,
appropriate disciplinary measures and proceedings are available such as reprimand, suspension or
even disbarment to rectify their wrongful acts.

The Court has often reminded members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms of the
legal profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the [CPR]. Lawyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair
dealing.

Respondent repeatedly failed to attend the scheduled hearing as well as to submit position
paper, xxx. He is therefore liable for violation of the [CPR] Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11 and Rule
18.03 of Canon 8.14 (Emphases in the original, citations omitted)

Anent the appropriate penalty imposable, We likewise adopt the IBP-BOG's recommendation for
the respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years. In Olvida vs.
Gonzales,15 (Olvida) We imposed the same penalty against a lawyer who was found to be grossly
negligent in the performance of his duty as a counsel (when he failed to file a position paper on
behalf of his client) and dishonest in his dealings with his client (when he concealed from his client
the adverse decision that resulted from his negligence), thus:

In administrative complaints against lawyers, the Court has exercised its discretion on what
penalty to impose on the basis of the facts of the case. Thus, for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or
other pleading, the Court had imposed penalties ranging from reprimand, warning with fine,
suspension, and in aggravated cases, disbarment.
 In the present case, the IBP Board of Governors imposed a four-month suspension from the
practice of law on the respondent for his negligence in filing the required position paper. The
established facts, however, show that the respondent was not only grossly negligent in the
performance of his duties as the complainant's lawyer; he was also downright dishonest and
unethical in his dealings with the complainant, an aspect of the case glossed over during the IBP
investigation.

For the injury he caused to the complainant and his family because of his malpractice, the
respondent must be made to suffer the commensurate penalty, despite the fact that there was no
motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution. In this light, We deem a three-year suspension
from the practice of law an appropriate penalty for the respondent's gross negligence and
dishonesty in his handling of the complainant's tenancy case.16 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)

Like the lawyer in Olvida, respondent was established to have committed gross negligence in
the performance of his duty as counsel by failing to attend any of the scheduled hearings in the
illegal dismissal case and by failing to file complainants' position paper despite being reminded by
the latter to do so. He was also dishonest in dealing with his clients as he attempted to make them
sign a document for the withdrawal of their illegal dismissal complaint on the pretense that the same
merely formalizes his withdrawal as their counsel. Hence, We find no qualms in applying the penalty
of suspension as recommended by the IBP-BOG. 1a⍵⍴h!1

Finally, We also adopt the IBP-BOG's recommendation of imposing a fine against respondent for
the latter's failure to attend the mandatory conference and to file the required pleadings before the
IBP-CBD. The mentioned acts of the respondent reflect his willful disregard of the IBP-CBD's
authority and disrespect of the board's proceedings that, in turn, constitute clear infractions of
Canons 11 and 12 of the CPR.17 We find the imposition of a fine in the amount of ₱15,000.00 for
such infractions to be reasonable and supported by jurisprudence.18

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Fabian A. Gappi GUILTY of violations of Rule
1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years, effective upon his
receipt of this Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with
more severely.

Respondent is also ORDERED to pay a fine in the amount of ₱15,000.00 for failure to comply
with the directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the
Bar, and furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.