Lawyer Suspended for Negligence and Misrepresentation Before the NLRC

A lawyer's duty to a client does not end with filing a case. It includes meeting deadlines, telling the truth to tribunals, and owning up to mistakes. In Cheng v. Agravante (A.C. No. 6183, March 23, 2004), the Supreme Court reminded the bar of these basics — and raised the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to make the point.

What happened

The respondent, Atty. Alexander M. Agravante, served as counsel for The Rogemson Co., Inc. in a labor case filed by a former employee before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Davao City. On June 18, 1998, the Labor Arbiter ruled against the company, ordering it to pay separation pay and backwages.

The decision was received by the respondent's law office on September 8, 1998, as shown by the registry return card. The company had ten calendar days — until September 18, 1998 — to perfect its appeal. The Memorandum of Appeal was filed only on September 22, 1998. The NLRC dismissed the appeal as belated.

Worse, the NLRC noted that the respondent's counsel had certified an inaccurate date of receipt — claiming the decision was received on September 10, 1998, apparently to make the appeal look timely.

After the company terminated his services, it demanded compensation for the losses caused by the late filing. When the respondent did not respond, its general manager, Edison G. Cheng, filed an administrative complaint with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.

The conflicting accounts

The respondent denied receiving the decision on September 8, saying he was out of town and only opened the envelope on September 10. He claimed he relied on a handwritten date on the envelope and instructed the client on the appeal period.

The investigating commissioner found otherwise. A company employee testified that she delivered the appeal bond to the law office on September 21, 1998 — not September 22 as the respondent claimed — and the respondent did not cross-examine her. The registry return card showed receipt on September 8. The commissioner concluded that the respondent had been negligent and had misled the NLRC about the date of receipt.

The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation of a two-month suspension. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lightness of the penalty.

The rules the Court applied

The Court anchored its ruling on the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On honesty before tribunals, Canon 10 provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court, and Rule 10.01 states that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. The Court held that the respondent lied about the date of receipt to make it appear that his appeal was on time.

On competence and diligence, Canon 18 requires a lawyer to serve the client with competence and diligence, and Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, with negligence rendering him liable. Filing the appeal four days late, the Court said, fell short of the required diligence and amounted to negligence and malpractice.

The respondent argued that he could not file an appeal without express instructions from the client. The Court rejected this: he could have filed the appeal and withdrawn it later if the client decided not to pursue it. His belated filing, far from excusing him, showed ignorance of a basic rule — an appeal filed beyond the reglementary period would surely be dismissed.

The penalty

The Court compared the case to a prior ruling where a lawyer was suspended for one year and fined P10,000 for serious neglect of duty and misrepresentation. Finding the cases similar, the Court increased the recommended penalty and suspended Atty. Agravante from the practice of law for one year, fined him P10,000, and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Practical takeaways

• Deadlines are not optional. Missing the period to appeal can extinguish a client's remedy entirely, and the lawyer — not the client — bears the consequences.
• Never misstate a date or fact to a tribunal. A false certification of receipt is not a harmless error; it violates the lawyer's oath and Canon 10.
• Lack of client instructions is not a defense. A lawyer may file the appeal to preserve the client's rights and withdraw it later if the client chooses not to proceed.
• Negligence and dishonesty can compound the penalty. The Court increased the IBP's recommended suspension because the case involved both.
• Clients can seek recourse. Administrative complaints before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline are a proper remedy for lawyer misconduct.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.