THIRD
DIVISION
|
ELISA V.
VENTEREZ, GENARO DE VERA, INOCENCIA V. RAMIREZ, PACITA V. MILLS, ANTONINA V.
PALMA and RAMON DE VERA, Complainants, - versus
- ATTY.
RODRIGO R. COSME, Respondent. |
|
A. C. No. 7421 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: October 10, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before
Us is a Complaint filed by complainants Eliza V. Venterez, Genaro de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina
V. Palma and Ramon de Vera against respondent
Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme, charging the latter with Abandonment, Gross Negligence
and Dereliction of Duty.
Complainants
contracted the legal services of respondent in Civil Case No. 981 entitled, “Sps. Daniel and Lolita
Complainants
alleged that they directed the respondent to either file a Motion for
Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but respondent failed or refused to do
so. The 15-day period within which to
file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration of the MTC Decision expired on
On
Two
months after respondent received a copy of the Decision, the respondent filed
his Notice of Retirement of Counsel with the MTC on
Feeling
aggrieved by respondent’s actuations, complainants filed the instant
administrative complaint against him.[7]
In
his Answer,[8] respondent
denied the claim of complainants that soon after the Decision was rendered by
the MTC, they (complainants) directed him to file an appeal or a motion for
reconsideration thereof. For his
defense, respondent averred that Salvador Ramirez (the son of one of the
complainants, Inocencia V. Ramirez), informed him that “he [was] withdrawing
the case from the respondent because he already engaged another lawyer to take
over the case, so respondent gave the records of the case to him.” Respondent explained that “after Salvador
Ramirez withdrew the case from the respondent, and engaged another lawyer, the
respondent turned over the records of the case to him and the respondent ceased
as the counsel of the complainants.” Respondent
further alleged that the said Motion for Reconsideration was already prepared
by another lawyer. He denied being furnished
a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration allegedly prepared and filed by another
lawyer engaged by complainant Elisa V. Venterez and that he was served with a
copy of the denial of the said Motion by the MTC. Respondent also clarified that the “last day
of the 15-day period for the perfection of the appeal is
Pursuant to the complaint, a hearing
was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) at the
On
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that Respondent is GUILTY of Gross Negligence and should be given the penalty of THREE (3) MONTHS SUSPENSION.
Thereafter, the IBP Board of
Governors passed Resolution[10]
No. XVII-2006-457 dated
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent is guilty of gross negligence, Atty. Rodrigo Cosme is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.[11]
We sustain the findings and
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
The
core issue is whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling
complainants’ case, as would warrant disciplinary action.
No
lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish
to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the
lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.[12] Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and
executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to
abandon his client and withdraw his services without reasonable cause and only
upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.[13] Any dereliction of duty by a counsel affects
the client.[14] This
means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.[15]
The Decision in Civil Case No. 981 was
rendered by the MTC of Calasaio, Pangasinan, on
We
cannot accept respondent’s defense that he had already withdrawn from the case
two days after his receipt of the MTC Decision and that he had allegedly communicated this withdrawal
to Salvador Ramirez, son of one of the herein complainants, Inocencia
Ramirez. It is an apparent attempt on
the part of respondent to wash his hands of any liability for failing to pursue
any of the available remedies to complainants from the adverse MTC Decision.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the
absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at any time with or
without cause.[18]
The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the
relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted.[19]
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.[20]
He is not at liberty to abandon it
without reasonable cause.[21]
A lawyer's right to withdraw
from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client's written
consent or from a good cause.[22]
Section 26, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 26. Change
of attorneys -- An attorney may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action
or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on
notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to
be allowed to retire. In case of
substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the
docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the
change shall be given to the adverse party.
A lawyer may retire at
any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his
client filed in court and with a copy thereof served upon the adverse
party. Should the client refuse to give
his consent, the lawyer must file an application with the court. The court, on notice to the client and
adverse party, shall determine whether the lawyer ought to be allowed to
retire. The application for withdrawal
must be based on a good cause.[23]
What constitute good
cause for the withdrawal of services by the counsel are identified under Rule
22.01, Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 22 -- A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01-- A lawyer may WITHDRAW his
services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client
pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter
he is handling;
b) When the client
insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules;
c) When his
inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;
d) When the mental
or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out
the employment effectively;
e) When the client
deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the
retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer
is elected or appointed to public office;
and
g) Other similar
cases.
The instant case does not
fall under any of the grounds aforementioned.
Neither can the circumstances of this case be considered analogous to
the grounds thus explicitly enumerated. Contrary
to respondent’s contention, his professional relations as a lawyer with his clients are not
terminated by the simple turnover of the records of the case to his clients. Respondent’s defense completely crumbles in
face of the fact that Salvador Ramirez is not even a party in Civil Case No.
981 and, hence, had no authority to withdraw the records of the said case from
respondent or to terminate the latter’s services.
Assuming, nevertheless,
that respondent was justified in withdrawing his services, he, however, cannot
just do so and leave complainants in the cold, unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his
petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court.[24] Until his withdrawal shall have been
approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is
expected by his clients, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of
his clients require.[25]
He must still appear before the court to
protect the interest of his clients by availing himself of the proper remedy,
for the attorney-client relations are not terminated formally until there is a
withdrawal of record.
Without a proper revocation of his
authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent remains counsel of record for
the complainants in Civil Case No. 981; and whether he has a valid cause to
withdraw from the case, he cannot immediately do so and leave his clients
without representation. An attorney may
only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission
of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event, the attorney should
see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.[26] Respondent did not comply with these
obligations. Therefore, he remains the counsel of record for the complainants
in Civil Case No. 981 with the duty to protect complainants’ interest. Had he made the necessary inquiries as to the
status of the case, he would have known that he was still the counsel of record
as no entry of appearance was ever made by another counsel. It would have been easily discernible on his
part that there was no change in his status as complainants’ lawyer. As of that time, their client-lawyer
relationship was still subsisting.
Therefore, he would have known that the Motion for Reconsideration was
denied; and a writ of execution had been issued under the circumstances.
All told, we rule and so hold that on
account of respondent’s failure to protect the interest of complainants,
respondent indeed violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.” Respondent is reminded that the
practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are
competent intellectually, academically and morally. This Court has been exacting in its
expectations for the members of the Bar to always uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which
might lessen the trust and confidence of the public.
The determination of the appropriate
penalty to be imposed on an errant lawyer involves the exercise of sound
judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.[27] In cases of similar nature, the penalty
imposed by the Court consisted of reprimand,[28] fine
of five hundred pesos with warning,[29]
suspension of three months,[30]
six months[31] and
even disbarment[32] in an
aggravated case.
The facts of the case show that
respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer pursuant to the Code of
Professional Responsibility. We conclude
that a 3-month suspension from the practice of law is a just penalty under the
circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the
resolution of the IBP Board of Governors approving and adopting the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, ATTY.
RODRIGO R. COSME is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of THREE
(3) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this decision be
attached to respondent’s personal record with the Office of the Bar Confidant
and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 19.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Tan
v. Lupak, G.R. No. 93707,
[13] Montano
v. Integrated Bar of the
[14] Philhouse
Developmwnt Corporation v. Consolidated Orix Leasing and Finance Corporation,
G.R. No. 135287,
[15]
[16] Rollo, p. 28.
[17]
[18] Franciso
v.
[19] Lim,
Jr. v. Villarosa, A.C. No. 5303,
[20] Orcino
v. Gaspar, 344 Phil. 792, 798 (1997).
[21] De
Juan v. Baria III, A.C. No. 5817,
[22] Orcino
v. Gaspar, supra note 20.
[23]
[24] Orcino v. Gaspar, supra note 20 at 800.
[25]
[26] De Juan v. Baria III, supra note 21 at 193.
[27] Endaya
v. Atty. Oca, 457 Phil. 314, 329 (2003).
[28]
[29] Basas
v. Icawat, 393 Phil. 304, 310 (2000).
[30] Ford
v. Daitol, 320 Phil. 53, 59 (1995).
[31] Perla
Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Atty. Saquilabon, 337 Phil. 555, 559 (1997).
[32] Mariveles
v. Mallari, A.C. No. 3294,