FACTS:
Complainant Datu Ismael Malangas filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent lawyer Atty. Paul C. Zaide before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Complainant accused respondent lawyer of committing acts of dishonesty, breach of trust, and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics in relation to a complaint for damages (Civil Case No. 6380) that he filed against Paul Alfeche and NEMA Electrical and Industrial Sales, Inc./Melanio Siao.
Complainant alleged that he engaged respondent lawyer's services to prosecute his complaint for damages, for which he gave him an acceptance fee and filing fees. Complainant further claimed that respondent lawyer filed the complaint on his behalf, seeking to recover damages in the amount of P5 million. However, complainant discovered that the complaint had been dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) due to "failure to prosecute." He also found out that the damages sought in the complaint were only P250,000 and not P5 million as stated by respondent lawyer.
Respondent lawyer, on the other hand, claimed that complainant was a client of the law firm he joined in 2002, and he only received appearance fees for attending to complainant's civil case. He denied receiving an acceptance fee and explained that the amount of damages sought in the complaint was based on the hospital bills incurred by complainant. Respondent lawyer also admitted deliberately skipping the hearings and not filing an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, claiming that it was agreed upon with complainant after finding out that NEMA's car did not hit complainant. He asserted that complainant was acting under greed in pursuing the case against his adversaries.
After the investigation, the IBP Commissioner found respondent lawyer guilty of dishonesty, breach of trust, and negligence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, suspending respondent lawyer from the practice of law for two years. Respondent lawyer's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.