ANTONIO CONLU, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS: This case is a Disbarment case with prayer for damages against Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. on grounds of gross
negligence filed by Antonio Conlu, his client in a case for Quieting of Title. The complainant secured the services of Atty.
Aredonia to represent him. The Court rendered a Decision against the complainant. The Decision was appealed to the Court
of Appeals, however the same was dismissed for failure of Atty. Aredonia to file the appeallant’s brief. The dismissal of the
appeal learned only after the wife of the complainant verified the status of the appeal. Atty. Aredonia seek reconsideration
on the resolution alleging that he did not received copy of the resolution, but the same was denied because of the late filing
of the motion. The private complainant personally filed another motion for reconsideration but the same was denied for the
reason that the belated filing of Atty. Aredonia’s first motion for reconsideration binds Antonio. Antonio then, appealed to
the Supreme Court but said appeal was denied by the Court. Thereafter, Antonio filed the disbarment case before the
Office of the Bar Confidant who rendered a Report/Recommendation to the Court. The Court in its resolution imposed among
others the filing of an administrative case against Atty. Aredonia before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline.

Issue: Whether or not res ipsa loquitur applies in this case.

Held:

Yes.

CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the Court to be misled by any artifice. (Emphasis supplied.)

We cannot write finis to this case without delving into and addressing Atty. Ireneo’s defiant stance against the Court as
demonstrated by his repetitive disregard of its resolution to file his comment on the basic complaint. After requesting and
securing no less than three (3) extensions of time to file his comment, he simply closed, so to speak, communication lines.
And when ordered to give an explanation through a show-cause directive for not complying, he asked for and was granted
a 30-day extension. But the required comment never came. When the Court eventually directed the NBI to arrest him, he
just left his last known address and could not be located.