WARRINER v DUBLINFACTS: 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.

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 client’s 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 respondent’s 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 court’s directing but is only a “human expression of frustration”

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

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 He should have withdrawn from the case if he truly believes such exhibits were fabricated (Canon 22).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.

CABAUATAN v VENIDAFACTS: Cabauatan (Petitioner) filed a disbarment case against Atty. Venida (Respondent) for gross, reckless and inexcusable negligence. Respondent was petitioner’s 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 1-year 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.