SECOND DIVISION
[A.C.
No. 4282. August 24, 2000]
TEODULFO B. BASAS, complainant,
vs. ATTY. MIGUEL I. ICAWAT, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
In a letter-complaint dated June
25, 1994, complainant Teodulfo B. Basas alleged negligence on the part of
respondent lawyer Miguel I. Icawat in the handling of NLRC-NCR Cases No.
00-09-05043-90, 00-11-06410-92, and 00-06-03672-93 involving complainant and
several of his co-workers.
Complainant was one of several
workers who filed three separate complaints before the NLRC against their
employer, FMC Engineering and Construction, in 1992 and 1993. Respondent was their lawyer.
In those cases, the workers
alleged that they were illegally dismissed and demanded payment of termination
pay, accrued leave benefits, 13th month pay, and moral damages. On March 21, 1994, labor arbiter Valentin C.
Guanio rendered a decision in favor of FMC, after finding that the workers were
project workers whose services were validly terminated upon completion of the
projects for which they were hired.
However, FMC was ordered to pay the worker' claims for wage
differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney's
fees.
Aggrieved, the workers informed
respondent that they wanted to appeal the decision. On May 23, 1994, respondent filed a notice of appeal. However, respondent did not file a
memorandum of appeal as required under the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Sensing that respondent had no intention to
file a memorandum, complainant and his co-workers asked respondent to just
withdraw from the case. Instead of
withdrawing, however, respondent threatened to sue their group and the new
lawyer they would hire, said the complainant.
Complainant also claims that he
and his co-workers gave respondent P280.00 for filing fee but respondent made a
receipt for only P180.00.
In his comment, respondent
asserts that he filed a notice of appeal at the behest of Flutarco Sueno,
complainant in one of the labor cases.
Respondent claims that herein complainant, along with the other workers,
did not wish to file an appeal since they had no money to spend. Respondent alleges that complainant and the
other workers instead asked him to withdraw from the case, which respondent
refused to do since he did not have a basis therefor and he had already
filed a notice of appeal.
Respondent argues that despite
his having filed a notice of appeal, he had not received any notice from the
NLRC directing him to file an appeal brief.
On October 24, 1994, we referred,
this matter to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In its report dated June 15,
1999, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent liable for
negligence and unprofessional conduct for his failure to file the required
memorandum of appeal before the NLRC, and to account for all the money he
received from his clients. Both are
clear violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the report of the Commission, with an amendment that the fine to be
imposed against respondent be reduced to P500.00 from P1,000.00.
We are in full accord with the
findings and recommendation of the IBP.
Rule VI, Section 3(a) of the NLRC
Rules of Procedure requires that:
"The appeal shall be filed
within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be
under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of
a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 5 of this Rule; shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied
upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a
statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, order
or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without
complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of
the period for perfecting an appeal.” (Underscoring
supplied.)
Respondent's failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the
NLRC Rules of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law. Respondent practically admitted that he did
not file the memorandum, when he claimed that "despite follow ups made [he
had] not yet received an order wherein which (sic) to file APPEAL BRIEF with
the National Labor Relations Commission."[1] His failure to file the memorandum clearly
prejudiced the interests of his clients.
Respondent manifestly fell short
of the diligence required of his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 provides:
"A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable."
As we reiterated in Aromin, et
al. v. Boncavil, A. C. No. 5135, September 22, 1999:[2]
"Once he agrees to take up the
cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by
the rules of law, legally applied. This
simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy
and defense that is authorized by the law of the land he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense.
If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to
the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also
serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect
of the community to the legal profession."
For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the P280.00 he
received from his clients - which he later on claimed to be insufficient for an
"old experienced lawyer", whether the amount be P180.00 or P280.00 -
respondent also violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
"A lawyer shall account for
all money or property collected or received for or from the client."
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to FINE Atty. Miguel I. Icawat
in the amount of P500.00, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense
or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.