FACTS:

The complainant in this case was the defendant in Civil Case No. 581 for Forcible Entry and the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 582 for Unlawful Detainer. These cases were consolidated and tried jointly by the Municipal Trial Court, which rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Felisa Imperial. The complainant's counsel, the respondent in this case, appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the decision. The complainant instructed the respondent to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals and complied with the respondent's demand for payment of P4,300.00 for the preparation and filing of the petition. However, the petition was later dismissed by the Court of Appeals due to insufficient payment of docket fees and failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed decision. The complainant only learned of the dismissal when the opposing party filed a motion for new trial, attaching a copy of the resolution. The complainant then filed a complaint against the respondent for "Gross Ignorance of the Law and Negligence in the Performance of Profession." The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline directed the respondent to answer the complaint, but the respondent failed to do so. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a notice and scheduled a hearing, but the respondent failed to appear. The complainant was allowed to present her evidence ex parte. The IBP-CBD submitted its report finding the respondent liable and recommending a fine of P1,500.00 and suspension from the practice of law for four to six months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but reduced the suspension to one month. The Court found the respondent liable for negligence and imposed a one-year suspension.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent lawyer is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and negligence in the performance of his profession.

2. Whether the recommended period of suspension imposed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline is adequate.

RULING:

1. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline found the respondent lawyer liable for gross ignorance of the law and negligence in the performance of his profession. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommended a suspension from the practice of law for a period ranging from four (4) to six (6) months. The Supreme Court, however, found the recommended period of suspension to be inadequate and imposed a one (1) year suspension.

PRINCIPLES:

• Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If the complaint is deemed to be clearly wanting in merit, it is outrightly dismissed. If further inquiry is deemed necessary, the matter is referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for formal investigation. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when the respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. (Ingles v. Dela Serna)

• The Investigator in a disciplinary case shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors. Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other order issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as indirect contempt of court. (Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court)