THIRD DIVISION
|
NATIVIDAD UY, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN, Respondent. |
A.C.
No. 8252
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 21,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
For
resolution is a Complaint[1]
for Disbarment filed by complainant Natividad Uy against respondent Atty.
Braulio RG Tansinsin.
Complainant was the defendant in an
ejectment case filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 49,
Realizing that she lost her case
because of the negligence of her counsel, complainant initiated the disbarment
case against respondent, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD).
Complainant averred that she gave her full trust and confidence to
respondent, but the latter failed miserably in his duty as a lawyer and
advocate.[8] She also claimed that respondent’s failure to
file the required position paper and memorandum on appeal constituted gross
incompetence and gross negligence, which caused grave injury to complainant.[9] Lastly, complainant alleged that not only did
respondent fail to file the required pleadings, he also was remiss in informing
her of the status of the case.
For his part, respondent admitted
that complainant obtained his legal services, but no legal fee was ever paid to
him. Respondent explained that he could not submit
an intelligible position paper, because the contract between complainant and
her lessor had long expired. He added
that he failed to file the position paper and memorandum on appeal, because
complainant told him that she would work out the transfer of ownership to her
of the land subject matter of the ejectment case. In effect, respondent said that he did not
submit the required pleadings, because he knew that the law favored the plaintiff
as against the defendant (complainant herein) in the ejectment case.[10]
In his Report and Recommendation, IBP
Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag made the following findings:
Public interest requires that an attorney
exert his best effort and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client’s
cause. A lawyer who performs that 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. This is so 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, or to the public.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, it is
respectfully recommended that the respondent be suspended from the active
practice of law for six (6) months with stern warning that repetition of
similar acts/omissions will be dealt [with] severely.[11]
In
its Resolution No. XVII-2006-586 dated
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is
hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with
modification, 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 gross
negligence and incompetence in handling cases, Atty. Braulio RG Tansinsin is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for three (3) months.[12]
Aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion
for Reconsideration,[13]
but the same was denied in Resolution No. XVIII-2008-706[14]
dated
We sustain the
Verily,
respondent’s failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client
about the developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers
on dedication and commitment to their client’s cause.[15]
Every
case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of its importance, and whether he accepts it for a fee
or for free.[16] A 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 he, himself, would expect of a
competent lawyer in a like situation. By agreeing to be his client’s
counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business
he undertakes to do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do
all acts necessary therefor; and his client may reasonably expect him to
discharge his obligations diligently.[17]
It must be recalled that the MeTC (in the ejectment
case) required the parties to submit their respective position papers. However, respondent did not bother to do so,
in total disregard of the court order. In addition, respondent failed to file
the memorandum on appeal this time with the RTC where complainant’s appeal was
then pending. Civil Case No. C-20717 was,
therefore, dismissed on that ground alone.
The importance of filing a memorandum on appeal cannot
be gainsaid. Section 7 (b) of Rule 40 of the Rules
of Court states:
SEC. 7. Procedure
in the Regional Trial Court.
–
x x
x x.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from
such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum which
shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which
shall be furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the appellant’s Memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure
of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the
appeal.
x x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]
By express mandate of the said Rule,
the appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal. Such submission
is not a matter of discretion on his part. His failure to comply with this mandate or to
perform this duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal.[18]
Respondent’s failure to file the
required pleadings is per se a
violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Resposibility[19] which states:
Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
Aside
from failing to file the required pleadings, respondent also lacked candor in
dealing with his client, as he omitted to apprise complainant of the status of her
ejectment case.
It bears stressing that the
lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the client to be
adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should never be left groping in the
dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed
in the lawyer so retained in particular and in the legal profession in general.[20] Respondent’s act demonstrates utter disregard
of Rule 18.04, Canon 18, Code of Professional Resposibility, which states:
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.
All told,
we rule and so hold that on account of respondent’s failure to protect the
interest of complainant, respondent indeed violated Rules 18.03 and 18.04,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is reminded that the practice of
law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent
intellectually, academically and morally.
The appropriate sanction is within
the sound discretion of this Court. In cases of similar nature, the penalty
imposed by the Court consisted of either
a reprimand or a fine of five hundred pesos with warning, suspension of three months or six months, and even disbarment
in aggravated cases.[21]
Considering the circumstances
surrounding the instant case, a three-month suspension from the practice of law
is the proper penalty.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board
of Governors is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accordingly,
respondent ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN 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.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[2]
[3]
[4] Branch 131,
[5] Rollo, p. 9.
[6]
[7] Rollo, Volune II, p. 3.
[8] Rollo, p. 2.
[9]
[10] Rollo, Vol. II p. 4.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Rollo, Vol. III.
[15] Villaflores
v. Limos, A.C. No. 7504,
[16] Id at 148; Endaya v. Atty. Oca, 457 Phil. 314, 326 (2003).
[17] Villaflores v. Limos, supra at 148-149.
[18] Gonzales
v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 151376,
[19] See: Canoy v. Ortiz, Adm. Case No. 5485,
[20] Edquibal
v. Ferrer, Jr., A.C. No. 5687,
[21] Villaflores
v. Limos, supra at 151; Soriano v.
Reyes, A.C. No. 4676,