SECOND DIVISION
|
FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, - versus - ATTY.
MANUEL G. SAN JOSE, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 3569 Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio
Morales, Tinga,
and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: February 23, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This is
an administrative complaint[1]
for disbarment filed by Fidela Vda. De Enriquez against respondent Atty. Manuel
G. San Jose for gross negligence.
Complainant
alleged that on P2,000
attorney’s fees, so she decided to withdraw the case from respondent. She demanded the return of the pertinent
documents but despite repeated demands, respondent refused and failed to return
the documents. As a result, the action
for unlawful detainer prescribed. Complainant alleged further, that her
daughter who worked for respondent was not paid her salary. Complainant prayed that Atty. San Jose be
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.
In his
Comment,[2]
respondent denied being negligent. He alleged
that he received a letter from the complainant informing him that the lessee
had already agreed to vacate the premises, and thus, the filing of an unlawful detainer case had become unnecessary. Respondent also explained that he did not
file the case even before receiving complainant’s letter because there was a
vacancy in the sala of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Libmanan-Cabusao, Camarines P3,000 and
that he had paid complainant’s daughter P700 per month.
The
Court referred[3]
the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report, and recommendation by the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The investigating officer found that
respondent was indeed remiss in the performance of his professional duties as
counsel. According to Commissioner Julio
C. Elamparo, the only complete work respondent rendered to his client was
sending a demand letter for the lessee to vacate the subject premises within ten
days from receipt of the demand letter.
The Commissioner also found respondent’s explanation for his failure to
file the case unsatisfactory and concluded that respondent was guilty of
negligence in the performance of his duty as a lawyer for abandonment of his
client’s cause. The Commissioner
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three
months.[4]
The IBP
Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the Commissioner
finding respondent liable for negligence but only imposed the penalty of one-month
suspension from the practice of law.[5]
On
In our
Resolution, dated
The
Investigating Commissioner in her report, dated
After a
thorough review of the records in this matter, we are in agreement with the IBP
that respondent Atty. San Jose be held liable for negligence; thus, his
petition for exoneration should be denied for utter lack of merit.
The
Code of Professional Responsibility in Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.[6] A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a
case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost
diligence. It is the duty of a lawyer to
serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best
efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his
client. It is not enough that a
practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter; he is also required to
prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work.[7]
In
Santos v. Lazaro,[8]
we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is a basic
postulate in legal ethics. Indeed, when
a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter’s rights.
Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a
good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him
by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the
legal profession, the courts and society.
Until the lawyer’s withdrawal is properly done, the lawyer is expected
to do his or her best for the interest of the client.[9]
In this
case, respondent fell short of the diligence required of a lawyer entrusted
with a case. It is undisputed that
respondent was hired by the complainant on
Among
the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who
undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
conclusion.[10] However, respondent in this case failed to
file the appropriate civil case after sending a demand letter. The failure to file a pleading is by itself
inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent.[11] Moreover, this Court finds reprehensible
respondent’s failure to heed the request of his client for the return of the case
documents. That respondent gave no
reasonable explanation for that failure makes his neglect patent.
Respondent
aggravates his misconduct by blaming the courts. Respondent’s excuse that the MCTC having
jurisdiction over the case was vacant; that filing of a case would be useless;
and that the best thing to do was to wait for the vacancy to be filled, finds
no support in the practice of law. The
vacancy in court did not suspend the court’s official existence, much less
render it functus oficio.
Respondent
also relies in vain on complainant’s letter dated
Finally,
we find the recommended penalty of one-month suspension from the practice of
law too light. In previous cases, we
have imposed six months suspension for violations of this nature, taking into
consideration the gravity of the offense and the necessity of preserving the
integrity of the legal profession. In Reyes
v. Vitan,[12]
for failure to take the appropriate actions in connection with his client’s
case, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
months and was required to render accounting of all the sums he received from
his client. Considering precedents, in
the light of circumstances in this case, we find no reason to deviate now from
the penalty meted previously for similar infractions.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty. Manuel G. San Jose is hereby declared guilty of violation of
Canon 18 specifically Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
effective upon notice of this Resolution.
He is ordered to return to complainant, within five (5) days from notice,
the sum of P2,000 with 12% interest per annum from the date of the
promulgation of this Resolution until the full amount shall have been returned.
Let a
copy of this Resolution be entered into respondent’s personal records as an
attorney and as a member of the Philippine Bar, and furnished the Court
Administrator for distribution to all courts of the land, the IBP, and the
Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-6.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
x x x x
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
x x x x
[7] Amaya v. Tecson, Adm. Case No.
5996,
[8] Adm. Case No. 5085,
[9] Villariasa-Riesenbeck
v. Abarrientos, A.C. No. 6238 (Formerly CBD Case No. 00-762),
[10] Cuizon v. Macalino, Adm. Case No.
4334,
[11] Barbuco v. Beltran, A.C. No. 5092,
[12] A.C. No. 5835,