EN BANC
[A.C. No. 5169. November 24, 1999]
ELMO S. MOTON, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAYMUNDO D. CADIAO, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PARDO,
J.:
The case is a verified
letter-complaint for disbarment[1] against Atty. Raymundo D. Cadiao, for
violation of the lawyer’s oath.
The antecedent facts show
that on September 29, 1987, complainant Elmo S. Moton filed with the Regional
Trial Court, Quezon City, a civil complaint against Pablito M. Castillo and The
Philippine Veterans Bank denominated as Right to Use Urban Land and Damages.[2]
On August 14, 1990, when
the case was scheduled for pre-trial conference, the complainant’s counsel,
Atty. Raymundo D. Cadiao, failed to appear, hence, the court dismissed the
case.[3] On August 15, 1990, Atty. Cadiao filed with
the trial court an entry of appearance for the complainant and a motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of the case.[4] Acting on the motion, the court set aside
the August 14, 1990 order of dismissal and reset the pre-trial conference on
May 5, 1991.[5]
On May 5, 1991, upon
motion of Atty. Cadiao, the court declared the defendant Castillo in default
and allowed plaintiffs to present their evidence ex-parte before a
Commissioner.[6] It turned out that the court appointed
Commissioner was on official leave.
Consequently, plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of a substitute
Commissioner. The court granted the
motion in an order dated June 28, 1991.
The reception of evidence was set on August 13, 1991.[7]
On August 2, 1991, Atty.
Cadiao filed a motion to reset the hearing from August 13, 1991 to August 26,
27, 28 or 29, 1991, for the reason that he had to attend a scheduled hearing in
Antique.[8] At the hearing of the motion on August 9,
1991, respondent was absent because he had left for Antique. Therefore, the court denied the motion to
reset hearing. A subsequent motion for
reconsideration with prayer to set case for reception of evidence was similarly
denied.[9]
On November 20, 1991,
Atty. Cadiao filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari
alleging that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction when it dismissed the case. On October 23, 1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition
for lack of merit.[10]
On January 20, 1993,
respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a Withdrawal of Appearance.[11]
Hence, this complaint.[12]
After conducting hearings
at which respondent was allowed to adduce evidence, on November 28, 1998, the
Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, submitted its
Report finding respondent Atty. Raymundo D. Cadiao liable for negligence in
handling the complainant’s case and recommended that Atty. Cadiao be fined Two
Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos with a warning that any similar negligence will be
dealt with more severely.[13]
In his answer to the
complaint filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline,[14] Atty. Raymundo D. Cadiao contended that the
main reason for the undue delay in the presentation of evidence in Civil Case
No. Q-51909 was the inability of the complainant to furnish him with the
original copies of the evidence and that his failure to appear during the
scheduled hearing was due to a compelling need to appear in another case in
Antique which made it impossible for him to attend both hearings.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. In
this case, by reason of Atty. Cadiao’s
negligence, actual loss has been caused to his client Elmo S. Moton. He should give adequate attention, care and
time to his cases. This is why a
practising lawyer may accept only so many cases that he can efficiently
handle. Otherwise, his clients will be
prejudiced. Once he agrees to handle a
case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not
true to his lawyer’s oath.
In light of the
foregoing, the Court agrees with the findings of the Commission on Bar
Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, declaring respondent liable for
negligence in the handling of complainant’s case.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to impose on respondent
Atty. Raymundo D. Cadiao a fine of P2,000.00 payable to this
Court within ten (10) days from notice, with warning that a repetition of
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De
Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Dated May 30, 1995, filed by Elmo S. Moton.
[2] Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-51909.
[3] Record, Commission on Bar Discipline, p. 64.
[4] Ibid., at pp. 65-66.
[5] See Report, p. 2, Record, p. 83.
[6] Record, p. 67.
[7] Record, p. 68.
[8] Record, pp. 69-70.
[9] Record,
p. 9; Report, p. 2, Record, p. 83.
[10] Record,
pp. 21, 71-75.
[11] Rollo,
p. 12.
[12] Rollo,
p. 1.
[13] Rollo,
pp. 80-85.
[14] Filed
on December 26, 1995, Rollo, pp. 14-17.