SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 4990. September 26,
2001]
ELENA ZARATE-BUSTAMANTE and LEONORA SAVET CATABIAN,
complainants, vs. ATTY. FLORENTINO G. LIBATIQUE, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before us is a complaint for
disbarment filed by Elena Zarate-Bustamante and Leonora Savet-Catabian against
Atty. Florentino G. Libatique, received by the Office of the Bar Confidant on
December 14, 1998. Complainants allege
that respondent, as their counsel, neglected to inform them of the status of a
case for partition they had earlier filed, which resulted to the loss of their
share in the property subject of partition.
The antecedent facts are as
follows:
Elena Zarate-Bustamante, Felicitas
Zarate-Savet, and Florencio Zarate were children of Casimiro and Trinidad
Zarate.[1] The spouses Zarate owned a parcel of land in Bauang,
La Union, with an area exceeding 3,000 square meters.[2] Casimiro donated the land to Florencio in 1944.[3]
In 1974, with respondent as
counsel, Bustamante and Savet filed an action seeking partition of the land
before Branch 4 of the then Court of First Instance of Bauang, La Union,
docketed as Civil Case No. 155-BG.
Defendant therein was Florencio Zarate.
On October 2, 1975 the CFI ordered the parties to voluntarily partition
the property, inasmuch as all three siblings have a right to the land.
Zarate appealed from the decision
of the CFI. In a decision promulgated
on January 29, 1982, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the CFI and
dismissed the complaint, after it found that the property in question was
donated to Zarate by his father in 1944 and that, since then, he had been in
actual, adverse possession of the property for almost 30 years when the
complaint for partition was filed in 1974.
Thus, he had acquired title to the property by prescription.
In 1998, Bustamante secured a copy
of the CFI order of partition and inquired from respondent if it could still be
enforced. She was also able to secure a
copy of an extrajudicial partition of the property made by the heirs of Zarate,
who died in 1993, and asked respondent his opinion about such partition.
Respondent replied that the CFI
order of partition could still be enforced, and that the extrajudicial
partition made by the heirs of Zarate was null and void, being contrary to the
CFI order. Respondent agreed to file a
new case to enforce the order, for an acceptance fee of P10,000.00 and
appearance fee of P500.00.[4] Complainants paid the acceptance fee on September 30,
1998.[5] On the same day, respondent, as counsel for
Bustamante and Savet’s daughter Leonora Savet-Catabian, filed a new case for
recovery of ownership, partition, and declaration of nullity of extrajudicial
partition.[6]
However, the case was dismissed
upon motion of the heirs of Zarate, who cited the 1982 ruling of the CA
upholding Zarate’s ownership of the property, which had become final and
executory.[7]
Complainants claimed to have been
unaware of the appeal made by Zarate to the CA, and confronted respondent about
the matter. However, respondent
allegedly claimed ignorance of such appeal.[8]
Hence, this complaint, in which
complainants aver that they lost their share in a property worth millions of
pesos due to the gross negligence and irresponsible conduct of respondent. Complainants argue that respondent could not
have been unaware of the appeal made by Zarate, since a check of court records
allegedly made by them revealed that respondent was duly served court processes
in connection with the appeal.
In his Comment, respondent admits
that he was counsel for the plaintiffs in the action for partition filed before
the CFI of Bauang, La Union. He also
admits that he agreed to handle a new case, this time for recovery of ownership
and declaration of nullity of an extrajudicial partition, for
complainants. Respondent stated that in
agreeing to accept the new case, he only relied on the order of the CFI dated
October 2, 1975, which he believed could still be enforced. He also believed that the extrajudicial
partition made by Zarate’s heirs was null and void, owing to the CFI’s order of
partition.
Respondent likewise admits having
received P10,000.00 from complainants as acceptance fee.[9] However, he claims to have “no recollection” as to
the status of the case filed before the CFI, “as it has been a long time ago
and I have no more record of the case on file in my office.”[10]
We referred the matter to the IBP
for investigation, report, and recommendation on June 23, 1999. We received the IBP’s report on October 16,
2000.
The IBP found that, indeed,
respondent was remiss in fulfilling his duty to his clients. He forgot about the case filed before the
CFI, and thus, failed to consider its implication on the new case that he filed
in 1998. The IBP recommended that
respondent be admonished for filing a new case “when the outcome would have
been dependent on an existing appealed case.”[11] The IBP also recommended that respondent return the
P10,000.00 he received from complainants as acceptance fee, with legal
interest.
We agree with the findings and the
recommendation of the IBP.
Respondent claims to have been
rattled and shocked[12] upon learning, after he filed the new case in 1998,
that the CA reversed in 1982 the order of the CFI directing partition of the
property, implying that he was unaware of the appeal made by Zarate. He admits that when he filed the new case,
he “had no recollection” regarding the status of the case before the CFI. The latest development he was aware of
concerned the CFI order issued in 1975.
However, respondent also admits
having filed an appellees’ brief when the CFI’s order of partition was appealed
to the CA. Yet, he claims to have lost
track of the case owing to numerous other commitments requiring his attention.[13] He faults complainants for failing to inquire from
him about the status of the case, despite having had the opportunity to do so
when they went home to Bauang on several occasions. He blames them for not taking further steps to enforce the CFI
order and protect their right to the property.
Respondent also argues that complainants should have known of the
appeal, since he certainly did not personally cause the printing of the
appellees’ brief and provide the money to pursue the appeal in Manila. Only the complainants could have done
so. Respondent avers that, like him,
complainants might have forgotten all about the case.[14]
Respondent has expressed
willingness to reimburse the P10,000.00 he received from complainants as
acceptance fee.[15] He denied complainants’ allegations that he was only
interested in money, since, according to him, he could have charged much more
than P10,000.00 if indeed the property in question was worth millions as
claimed by complainants.[16]
We are not entirely persuaded by
respondent’s attempt to shift the blame to his clients regarding their case on
appeal.
Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. More
specifically, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 provide:
Rule 18.03.—A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04.—A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
Clearly, respondent breached his
duty to his client when he conveniently forgot about the appeal filed by
Zarate. His negligence shows a glaring
lack of the competence and diligence required of every lawyer, and his
admission of negligence[17] does not mitigate his liability. He cannot now shift the blame to
complainants for failing to inquire about the status of the case, since, as
stated above, it was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of
cases entrusted to him. His failure to
do so is an infraction that this Court will not countenance.
Respondent cannot simply say that
he lost track of the first partition case because he had numerous other
commitments to attend to. Like all
professionals, he is expected to devise ways to follow the course of his cases
and to keep his files updated. None of these would have happened had respondent
been more mindful of his responsibilities as an attorney.
Neither is the passage of time an
excuse. It is a fundamental rule of
ethics that “an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly
stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.”[18] It is respondent’s bounden duty to see his cases
through until properly completed and not abandon or neglect them in midstream.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Florentino G. Libatique is declared GUILTY of
negligence in the performance of his duties to his clients, and ADMONISHED to
henceforth adhere faithfully to the canons set forth in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is
ORDERED to return to complainants Elena Zarate-Bustamante and Leonora
Savet-Catabian the amount of P10,000.00 he received from them as attorney’s
fee, with legal interest until fully returned.
Let a copy of this decision be
spread in his file at the Office of the Bar Confidant and of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza,
Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 56.
[2] Id. at 56-57.
[3] Id. at 57.
[4] Id. at 47.
[5] Id. at 67.
[6] Id. at 62.
[7] Id. at 19.
[8] Id. at 3-4.
[9] Id. at 48.
[10] Id. at 47.
[11] IBP Report and
Recommendation, p. 9.
[12] Rollo, p. 47.
[13] Id. at 54.
[14] Id. at 49.
[15] Records, p. 61.
[16] Rollo, p. 53.
[17] Records, p. 50.
[18] Orcino v. Gaspar,
279 SCRA 379, 384 (1997).