SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. CBD No. 190. February 4, 1999]
CORAZON T. REONTOY, complainant, vs. ATTY. LIBERATO
R. IBADLIT, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
On 28, January 1998 we issued a
Resolution holding respondent Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit administratively liable
and suspending him from the practice of law for one (1) year for failing to
appeal within the reglementary period the decision rendered against his client,
complainant Corazon T. Reontoy, in Civil Case No. 2805 of the RTC-Br. 4, Kalibo
Aklan,[1] in his belief, according to him, that to appeal
would be futile. We declared that it
was highly improper for him to have adopted such an opinion. We reminded him that a lawyer was without
authority to waive his client’s right to appeal and that his failure to appeal
within the prescribed period constituted negligence and malpractice, proscribed
by Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides “(a) lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”[2]
In his Motion for Reconsideration
respondent argued that he believed in good faith that his client’s case was
weak and that she wholeheartedly accepted his explanation that the adverse
decision was not worth appealing anymore.
Besides, it was only several years later that she complained when no
more relief was available to her.
Respondent further claimed that
complainant had reasonable opportunity to hire another counsel for a second
opinion whether to appeal from the judgment or file a petition for relief. He also claimed that he did not commit to
handle his client’s case on appeal and that the testimonies of complainant and
her brother Proculo were unpersuasive.
But even if he be penalized, his one (1) year suspension was too harsh
given his unblemished record as a member of the Bar. Moreover, if ever, this would be his first offense.
Finding the arguments of
respondent Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit not to be totally without merit, the Court
RESOLVES to reduce to two (2) months
his penalty of suspension from the practice of law imposed in the Resolution of
28 January 1998 with warning however that he should be more attentive to and
solicitous of the welfare of his clients.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.