EUGENIO MAGO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ELISEO BOTE, RESPONDENT.

The respondent was charged with gross negligence for not having
paid proper attention to the prosecution of the complainant’s action for
damages, resulting in its dismissal and the latter’s loss of a legitimate claim
for P34,000.00 against the defendant.^[1]

It was alleged that the respondent was retained by the
complainant to prosecute this claim and entered his appearance on behalf of the
plaintiff on January 4, 1960.  After the complainant had rested his case,
the defense presented its main witness, the defendant herself, but the
respondent was not then able to cross-examine her for lack of time.  That was on September 19, 1960, and that was also the last time the
respondent appeared in this case.^[2]

On November 6, 1962,
the late Judge Francisco O. Geronimo issued an order, reading as follows:

“It appearing that this case has been pending since 1959, and
that since the last order dated September 19, 1960, neither party has taken any
step to prosecute further this case, and it appearing furthermore that the
counsel for the plaintiff has moved to an unknown address without informing
this court, it is ordered that this case be as it is hereby dismissed, without
prejudice to the right of either party to assert in a new action their
respective claims, should they desire to litigate further.  Without pronouncement as to costs.

“SO ORDERED.”^[3]

The complainant learned of this order only on April 12, 1974, or twelve years
later, when he inquired about the status of his case from court personnel.  Earlier, according to him, he had
periodically asked about the same matter from the respondent, who had assured
him he would be informed about it.  The
respondent later changed his address without notifying the complainant or the
court.^[4]

This complaint was referred for investigation, report and
recommendation to the Solicitor General,^[5]
who, after hearing the parties, filed his own administrative complaint against
the respondent based on the earlier complaint and on his own findings.^[6]

In refutation of the charges, the respondent simply denies that
he received any notice from the court but does not state or prove that he
informed it of his change of address.  He
also claims that he and the complainant had a quarrel sometime in 1961, before
the case was dismissed, and that as a result he had terminated their lawyer-client
relationship.^[7]
There is nothing in the record that he had formally withdrawn as counsel for
the complainant.  On the contrary, he was
still the attorney of record for the plaintiff when Civil Case No. 39004 was
dismissed on November 6, 1962.

It appears that since 1960 the respondent had not lifted a finger
to further press the private complainant’s claim or even to verify its
status.  There is also evidence that
after the private complainant brought this matter to this Court, the respondent
and his wife twice offered him a piece of land in consideration of the
withdrawal of his complaint.^[8]

The argument raised by the respondent that the complainant’s case
was weak anyway does not deserve serious consideration.  In the first place, he himself recommended
against the defendant’s offer of amicable settlement, insisting that the
complainant’s case was strong.^[9]
In the second place, he would not have accepted the case if he thought it had
no prospects, especially since he would be paid only on a contingent basis.^[10]
In any event, this defense is no justification for abandoning the case.

The complainant is not barred by prescription nor is the
complainant guilty of laches.  The record shows that the complainant filed
his complaint on December 24, 1974,^[11]
after learning of the dismissal of his case only on April 12, 1974. 
It is not true that the complainant slept on his right for twelve years
for he was informed of the order of dismissal only eight months before he filed
his complaint.

The Court is convinced that the respondent grossly neglected the
complainant’s case, to the latter’s prejudice. 
In so comporting himself, the respondent violated his ethical duty
toward his client and acted in a manner unbecoming a member of the Bar.

WHEREFORE, the respondent is suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one year, effective immediately.  It is so ordered.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo, p. 33.

^[2] Ibid.,
pp. 29-30.

^[3] Id.,
p. 10.

^[4] Id.,
pp. 30-31.

^[5] Id.,
p. 26.

^[6] Id.,
pp. 28-32.

^[7] Id.,
pp. 61-63.

^[8] Id.,
p. 35.

^[9] Id.,
p. 39.

^[10] Id.

^[11] Id.,
p. 2.