FIRST DIVISION
|
CESAR
TALENTO and MODESTA HERRERA TALENTO, Petitioners, - versus – ATTY.
AGUSTIN F. PANEDA, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 7433
[Formerly
CBD Case No. 05-1554] Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: December
23, 2009 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before us is the administrative
complaint filed by mother and son Modesta Herrera Talento and Cesar Talento
charging Atty. Agustin F. Paneda of violation of his oath as a lawyer and
neglect of duty.
This case was initiated by
petitioners with the filing of a Complaint[1]
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on
“a.
Sometime in
b.
This case was entitled: LETICIA HERERRA, Plaintiff vs. MODESTA H. TALENTO and
CESAR TALENTO as Defendants for Quieting of Title, docketed as Civil Case No.
A-2043;
c.
[Petitioners] secured the services of Atty. Agustin Paneda to help and defend [them]
in the aforementioned case. [Petitioners] paid the attorneys’ fees he required
from [them] in order that [they] could avail of his services as counsel;
d.
Atty. Paneda filed [petitioners’] answer to the complaint on
e.
Despite the order and notice to [their] counsel, he did not file or submit a
pre-trial brief for [petitioners’] behalf. Much more to [their] surprise and
predicament, although [petitioners] attended the pre-trial hearing, he did not
appear;
f.
As a result of his non-appearance, the counsel for the other party spoke of
things beyond our knowledge which the Honorable Court granted being expressly
stated and provided in the Rules of Court. [Petitioners] were declared in
default because of the failure of [their] counsel to file and submit [petitioners’]
pre-trial brief. The Honorable Court allowed the case to be heard ex parte much
to our damage and prejudice;
g.
The Honorable Court issued a decision against [petitioners] simply for failure
of [their] counsel Atty. Paneda to submit [petitioners’] pre-trial brief and
for his failure to attend the pre-trial of the case. It was simply because of
technicality and not based on the merits of the allegations of both parties
that [petitioners] lost the case;
h.
Atty. Paneda filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated
i.
Atty. Paneda told [petitioners] that he will appeal the case to the Court of
Appeals and [they] agreed because [they were] confident of [petitioners’] claim
over the parcel of land subject of this case. He filed a notice of appeal on
j.
[Petitioners] waited for so long for the decision of the Honorable Court of
Appeals and [petitioners] found out later that [petitioners’] appeal was
dismissed due to lack of an appeal brief only when [petitioners] went to Atty.
Paneda.”[2]
In the Order[3]
dated
In his Answer, respondent states
that he honestly believed that he had not violated his oath as a lawyer nor did
he commit negligence in handling the case of the petitioners. He likewise avers that there were other
considerations and incidents which had intervened in the case that produced
adverse reactions. He cites as reason
for the non-filing of the Pre-trial Brief the fact that, before the date set
for pre-trial hearing, respondent was informed by petitioners that they had
already entered into an Amicable Settlement with the plaintiff. Respondent advised petitioners to submit the
said agreement to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in lieu of the Pre-trial
Brief. Respondent did not appear during
the pre-trial conference scheduled in the morning of
Petitioners refute the foregoing
assertions of the respondent.[8]
They vehemently deny respondent’s claim that
they allegedly informed him of the Amicable Settlement prior to the date of
pre-trial hearing. In fact, they intended to show the document to him for the very
first time at the pre-trial conference in which he did not appear. They likewise belie respondent’s claim that he
gave instructions to petitioners on what to do during the pre-trial conference
in his absence. They further deny respondent’s
claim that he had informed them beforehand of his inability to attend due to a
conflict of schedule. Granting that
there was indeed a conflict of schedule, petitioners maintain that respondent
is required by Rule 18, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court[9]
to file the Pre-trial Brief at least three (3) days before the date of
pre-trial conference. Finally,
petitioners insist that, contrary to respondent’s assertion in his Answer,
respondent did not exert his best efforts for his clients because, after
negligently abandoning them at the RTC, respondent likewise failed to fulfill
his duty of safeguarding their interests in the CA when respondent failed to
perform a basic legal requirement of filing an Appeal Brief in order for the
said court to take cognizance of their Appeal.
The parties were then required by
the Commission to appear at a mandatory conference held on
After the termination of the
hearing, the parties were directed to file their respective verified position
papers within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order[10]
and were informed that with or without said position papers, the case shall be
deemed submitted for report and recommendation. Only petitioners submitted a
Position Paper[11]
which was received by the Commission on
On April 28, 2006, Commissioner
Rebecca Villanueva-Maala submitted her Report and Recommendation finding
respondent guilty of gross violation of his duties as a lawyer and of
inexcusable negligence with the recommendation that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. The salient portion of the Report reads:
“Respondent’s
failure to file complainants’ Pre-trial Brief, his failure to appear during the
Pre-trial Conference because he has to attend to another case, his failure to
file complainants’ Appeal Brief and his failure to inform complainants of the
dismissal of the case at the Court of Appeals are in gross violation of his
duties as a lawyer and show inexcusable negligence on his part.
His
contention that he told complainants to present the Amicable Settlement agreed
upon by the parties for the court’s appreciation does not excuse him of his
obligation to his clients, much more his allegation that he advised
complainants of the futility of the case. It should be noted that the Amicable
Settlement was forged by the parties after the case was already filed in court,
therefore the same has no legal effect.
The
lawyer owes a duty to his client to be competent to perform the legal services
which the lawyer undertakes on his behalf. The lawyer should serve his client
in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and he should provide a
quality of service at least equal to that which lawyers generally would expect
of a competent lawyer in a like situation (citation omitted).
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we hereby recommend that respondent ATTY. AGUSTIN F.
PANEDA be SUSPENDED for a period of ONE YEAR from receipt hereof
from the practice of his profession as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.”[12]
On
“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 Respondent’s inexcusable negligence, Atty.
Agustin F. Paneda is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year.”[13]
The
only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent committed
gross negligence or misconduct in handling petitioners’ case both on trial in
the RTC and on appeal in the CA which led to its dismissal without affording
petitioners the opportunity to present their evidence.
After
a careful consideration of the records of the instant case, this Court agrees
with the IBP in its findings and conclusion that respondent’s documented acts
fall extremely short of the standard of professional duty that all lawyers are
required to faithfully adhere to.
The
pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:
CANON
17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON
18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
x x x x x
Rule
18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule
18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
There
is no doubt that respondent was woefully remiss in his duty to display utmost
diligence and competence in protecting the interests of his clients. The records of this case clearly detailed dire
instances of professional neglect which undoubtedly showed respondent’s failure
to live up to his duties and responsibilities as a member of the legal profession. Petitioners lost Civil Case No. A-2043 in the RTC mainly because they were
barred from presenting their evidence in court. This was a result of their being declared in
default in the said case as a consequence of respondent’s failure to appear at
the pre-trial conference. Respondent
defended his non-appearance by stating that he had informed petitioners
beforehand of a conflict of schedule and that he had instructed them on what to
do in his absence, but petitioners vehemently denied this claim.
Even if we are to give credence to respondent’s
justification, this does not excuse him from the fact that he was unable to
file a Pre-trial Brief at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled pre-trial
conference, as required by the Rules. Respondent
alleges that he already prepared the Pre-trial Brief but did not push through
with filing it because he was allegedly furnished by petitioner Modesta Herrera
Talento with an Amicable Settlement that was forged between the parties before
the Barangay Lupon of San Pedro, Agoo, La Union. He claims that he instructed his clients to
present said document during the pre-trial conference as he had another hearing
to attend.[14] However, respondent’s excuse is untenable as
any lawyer worth his salt would readily know that once a case has been filed in
court, any amicable settlement between the parties must be approved by the
court in order for it to be legally binding in accordance with Section 416[15]
of the Local Government Code of 1991 in relation to the last paragraph of
Section 408[16] of the
same Code. Thus, he cannot assume that the case will be deemed closed by virtue
of the supposed amicable settlement so as to excuse him from filing the
Pre-trial Brief and from appearing at
the pre-trial set by the court.
With regard to
his subsequent error of failing to file the required Appeal Brief which led to
the dismissal of his clients’ appeal before the CA, respondent did not give any
plausible explanation other than merely placing the blame on the incompetence
of his secretary in not promptly informing him about her receipt of the Notice
of Submission of Appellants’ Brief.[17] This mistake by respondent is exacerbated by
the fact that he did not care to inform his clients of the dismissal of their
appeal in 2002 and it was only in 2005 that his clients learned about this
unfortunate turn of events.
It is beyond
dispute that respondent is duty-bound by his oath as a lawyer to diligently
prosecute the case of his clients to the best of his ability within the bounds
of law. Regrettably, the facts of this
case illustrate respondent’s dismal performance of that responsibility, which
in its totality could amount to a reprehensible abandonment of his clients’
cause.
A lawyer, when
he undertakes his client’s cause, makes a covenant that he will exert all
efforts for its prosecution until its final conclusion. He should undertake the task with dedication
and care, and he should do no less, otherwise, he is not true to his lawyer’s
oath.[18]
As held in the case of Vda. De Enriquez v.
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. 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.
In Balatbat
v. Arias,[20] the Court also held that:
It must be stressed that public interest
requires that an attorney exert his best efforts in the prosecution or defense
of a client’s cause. A lawyer who
performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interests 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. Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole
system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time when strong and disturbing
criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance with
one’s oath of office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative.
Accordingly,
for seriously prejudicing his clients’ interests due to inexcusable neglect of
his professional duties as a lawyer, the IBP Investigating Commissioner
recommended the suspension of respondent for one (1) year from the practice of
law. The IBP Board of Governors acceded
to this recommendation.
WHEREFORE,
we find respondent Atty. Agustin F. Paneda GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18
as well as Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent from the
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon finality of this Decision.
Let
copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to respondent’s personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be
furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-25.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Rule 18, Section 6. Pre-trial brief. – The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and
(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective testimonies.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
[10] Rollo, p. 77.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Section 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. – The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court.
However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408 of this Code, in which case the compromise settlement agreed upon by the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of said court.
[16] Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - x x x The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
[17] Rollo, pp. 56-61.
[18] Pangasinan
Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) v. Montemayor, A.C. No. 5739,
[19] A.C.
No. 3569,
[20] A.C.
No. 1666,