BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
YSMAEL V. ABO VS. ATTY. GINA P. BALLEBAR, A.C. 13889 (CBD CASE NO. 18-5701), JANUARY 21, 2026: LAWYER SUSPENDED FOR FIVE (5) YEARS FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING A CRIMINAL CASE LEADING TO THE CONVICTION OF HER CLIENT
The instant case stemmed from the administrative complaint lodged by the complainant against the respondent lawyer for gross negligence in connection with a criminal case for Estafa wherein the complainant engaged the services of the respondent. Records reveal that respondent Atty. Ballebar failed to attend at least 12 scheduled hearings, and in fact, was reprimanded and fined. In another instance, respondent Atty. Ballebar was directed to submit an explanation 1) why she should not be cited in contempt of court; 2) complainant’s cash bond be deemed forfeited; and 3) a warrant of arrest be issued against the complainant.
Despite the previous Show Cause Order, both complainant and respondent Atty. Ballebar were absent in another hearing which resulted to an imposition of fine on respondent, directive by the trial court for respondent to inform the court if she is still representing the complainant, and that complainant already deemed waived his right to present evidence.
Complainant also alleged that respondent Atty. Ballebar failed to submit the Compromise Agreement with the private complainant despite a directive or opportunity given by the trial court. Complainant also alleged that he relied on the representation and assurance of respondent Atty. Ballebar that the criminal case will be dismissed in view of the settlement of the civil aspect. However, complainant learned from his father of his scheduled promulgation and he was eventually found guilty of Estafa and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 3 years, 2 months and 11 days of prision correcional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum.
Dissatisfied, complainant was constrained to engage the services of another lawyer who filed an Entry of Appearance with urgent Motion to Reopen the Case with Leave of Court which was denied because the assailed judgment had already attained finality.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended for the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for a period of 3 years which was modified and reduced by the Board of Governors to 2 years suspension.
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, imposed a suspension from the practice of law on respondent Atty Ballebar for a period of 5 years for violation of Canon IV of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) – A lawyer professionally handling a client’s cause shall, to the best of his or her ability, observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or issues involved, and whether for a fee or pro bono; particularly Section 1 (A lawyer shall provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and conscientious. A lawyer shall be thorough in research, preparation, and application of the legal knowledge and skills necessary for an engagement); Section 3 (A lawyer shall diligently and seasonably act on any legal matter entrusted by a client. A lawyer shall be punctual in all appearances, submissions of pleadings and documents before any court, tribunal or other government agency, and all matters professionally referred by the client, including meetings and other commitments); Section 4 (A lawyer shall observe diligence in all professional undertakings, and shall not cause or occasion delay in any legal matter before any court, tribunal, or other agency; and Section 6 (A lawyer shall regularly inform the client of the status and the result of the matter undertaken, and any action in connection thereto, and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. Lawyers are duty-bound to attend to their client’s cause with diligence, care, and devotion, whether they accept it for a fee or for free, so much so that a lawyer’s neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him constitutes inexcusable negligence for which the lawyer must be held administratively liable.)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that “it is undisputed that the respondent failed to live up to the high standards of professionalism expected of a lawyer. Her repeated absence from the scheduled trial court hearings, noncompliance with the RTC’s directives despite being fined on more than one occasion, and failure to promptly duly inform her client, who faced the imminent risk of losing his liberty if convicted, demonstrate a serious dereliction of duty and neglect in her role as counsel.”
The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that respondent Atty. Ballebar did not show any remorse and even ratiocinated that her non-appearance was with the consent of her client and that the conviction was because the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the lawyer should ought to know, and should have advised the complainant that the compromise agreement on the civil aspect does not automatically equate or will not result in the dismissal of the criminal case wherein the State is the offended party. Clearly, respondent Atty. Ballebar was guilty of gross negligence and the Court rightfully imposed a heftier penalty of suspension from the practice of law for 5 years despite the fact that it is the respondent’s first infraction.