Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
ROGELIO F. ESTAVILLO, Complainant, - versus - ATTYS. GEMMO G. GUILLERMO
and ERME S. LABAYOG, Respondents. |
A.C.
No. 6899
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: November
16, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We review Resolution No. XIX-2011-503,[1]
passed on
The Case
On
In particular, the complainant
charged the respondents for their failure to file an answer in the civil case
within the period fixed by the Rules of Court, as required by the summons dated
You are hereby required to enter your appearance in the above-entitled case within ten (10) days after the service of the summons upon you, exclusive of the day of such service, and to answer the complaint served upon you within the period fixed by the Rules of Court. If you fail to appear within the aforesaid period, the plaintiff will take judgment against you by default and demand from this Court the relief prayed for in said complaint.
The MTCC noted that the summons was served
on the Estavillos on
The complainant further claimed that
the respondents did not inform him or his son of scheduled hearings and
incidents related to the civil case, notably the following:
1)
the
2)
the
Order dated March 28, 2005[7]
with a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, ordering them;
to demolish the fence they built on the disputed property; to refrain from
demolishing or continuing with the demolition of Guerreros house; and to
refrain from continuing with the construction of the fence on the property in dispute;
3)
the
Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Adduce Evidence in Support of her Prayer for
Damages, with notice of hearing on May 20, 2005;[8] the
hearing was held without the appearance of either of the respondents; and
4)
the
Order dated May 31, 2005,[9]
directing the complainant and his son to solidarily pay Guerrero P20,000.00
as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages, P30,000.00 as attorneys fee, and P3,060.00 as
cost of suit.
Still further, the complainant
bewailed that at 5:00 p.m. on June 24, 2005, as he and his son were waiting at
the respondents law office, Atty. Guillermo finally arrived; they told the
lawyer about their discovery of the May 31, 2005 order; when they asked him why
they were not advised of the judgment, Atty. Guillermo just answered, We have plenty of work.[10]
Taken aback by Atty. Guillermos response and attitude, they left the law office
enraged and confused. The same indifferent treatment was shown to them by Atty.
Labayog who undertook to show them the draft of the notice of appeal of the
As
required by the Court,[11]
the respondents submitted their Comment to the complaint[12]
where they vehemently denied the complainants allegations that they had been grossly
negligent. They alleged that the complainant conferred with Atty. Guillermo
regarding the civil case. They learned that Guerrero, the plaintiff, is the
former owner of the property in dispute and is residing at a house built on the
property. The Estavillos acquired the property and they wanted to get rid of
Guerrero. One way of doing it, they thought, was to build a fence on the lot,
thereby substantially reducing Guerreros passageway and destroying Guerreros
house. Thus, Guerrero prayed for a
temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary and/or prohibitory
injunction.
To
the respondents mind, Guerreros case was actually for possession despite its title for
Forcible Entry based on the allegations of the complainant. They,
therefore, waited for the order of the court, before they filed the answer to
the complaint. They relied on Section 4, par. 2 of the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure which provides that if no ground for dismissal is found by
the court, it shall forthwith issue summons stating that the summary procedure
under the Rule shall apply.
Unfortunately, the court did not issue any order so they presumed that
the regular rules apply and that the time to file an answer is fifteen (15)
days. This notwithstanding, they vehemently opposed Guerreros motion to strike
out the answer, but the court ruled in Guerreros favor and struck out the
answer they filed in behalf of the Estavillos.
The
respondents further maintained that contrary to the complainants allegations,
they represented the complainant and his son in all stages of the proceedings,
except at one hearing when Guillermo had an emergency meeting in connection
with a different case. They also denied that they were not providing updates on
the case; the complainants son, Dexter, had been regularly going to the law
office to get feedbacks on the progress of the case.
The
respondents took exception to the complainants claim that Atty. Guillermo said
We have plenty of work[13]
in justifying the loss of the civil case, for what he told the complainant on
one occasion was not all cases are won, and our only remedy left is appeal.[14]
They indeed filed the appeal which adequately and exhaustively discussed the complainants
position in the case. It just so happened that the court decided in Guerreros favor.
The IBP Proceedings
On
In
a Report and Recommendation dated
The
relevant portions of Commissioner Magpayos report state:
After a judicious study of the records, it appears to the undersigned that the respondents composing the law office of Guillermo & Labayog did not meet the standard of diligence required by the situation relative to the civil complaint and the summons received by their client. When they accepted the complainants case, the clients presented to them the copy of the summons issued by the Clerk of Court.
The summons dated
The complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 3183 is for: Forcible Entry and damages with prayer of the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary mandatory and/or prohibitory injunction.
It behooves or is incumbent upon respondent[s] to be knowledgeable of the periods within which to file a pleading. In this particular [instance], Rule 70, governing forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases which is incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[,] has been in effect for almost eight (8) years when this complaint was instituted by plaintiff Guerrero against respondents clients. It is the bounden duty of counsel in the active practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court and changes in the law (De Roy v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 757).
It was the finding of the MTCC that as appearing in the record, the defendants filed their Answer only on April 4, 2005 or 7 days beyond the ten (10) day period given (order dated April 28, 2005).
Thus, it is plain that respondents who argued that the reglementary period is fifteen days, and not ten days, were still late in submitting the defendants answer within fifteen days.[17]
Commissioner
Magpayo, however, found no solid evidence to support the complainants other
accusations. He cited as a case in point the hearing of
Commissioner
Magpayo opined that to the credit of the respondents, they put up a fight,
however futile, in defense of the complainants case, as shown in the TSN of the
hearings of March 22,[18]
April 15[19] and
The IBP Board of Governors Ruling and Related Incidents
On
On
On
August 26, 2009, Guerrero filed a comment on the motion for reconsideration,
asking for its denial, contending that [t]he hackneyed reasoning of
respondents that the trial court should have issued an order fixing the period
to file an answer is a subterfuge, if not a lame excuse, for their gross
negligence and lack of fidelity in handling their clients case.[23]
On
The Courts Ruling
The
original sanction recommended by Commissioner Magpayo against the respondents,
principally for their failure to file an answer for the Estavillos in the civil
case, was a three-month suspension from
the practice of law. The recommendation already took into account the
presence of mitigating circumstances, although Commissioner Magpayo failed to
elaborate on what these mitigating circumstances were.
In
asking for a penalty lighter than the three-month suspension imposed, the respondents
contend that they did everything required by their clients defense, except for
the answer to the complaint which was filed beyond the
reglementary period. Nonetheless, they submit that if there had been any
negligence at all, it was not gross as it was due to a difficult appreciation
of the Rules. In any event, they submit that their clients really had a losing
case and there was nothing they could do about it. They further argue that the
recommended penalty is not in accord with jurisprudence.
Under
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Pursuant to Rule 18.03 cited by the
complainant, A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
After
a review of the facts, we find no reason to reduce the originally recommended
penalty of suspension for three months against the respondents for their mishandling
of the Estavillos civil case. Although they filed the answer, it could no
longer serve its purpose as it was filed late (i.e., seven days beyond the required ten [10]-day period), as found
by the court.[25] As a
consequence, the answer was stricken off the record[26]
to the detriment of the complainant and his son.
The
respondents attempted to justify the late filing of the answer by claiming that,
to their mind, the civil case was actually for possession, notwithstanding that its title is for forcible entry. They thus waited for an
order from the court pursuant to Section 4 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure which provides that If no ground for dismissal is found it shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the summary procedure under this
Rule shall apply. They did not receive a court order so they presumed that the
regular rules apply, under which, the answer shall be filed within fifteen (15)
days.
We
do not find the respondents stance acceptable as it betrays a lack of the
necessary competence and diligence required by the Code of Professional
Responsibility in responding to the courts summons for the Estavillos to make an appearance in the case and to file
an answer to the complaint. The respondents, especially Atty. Guillermo who
was supposed to be the lead counsel for the Estavillos, misappreciated the
urgency and the importance of the courts summons. They mistakenly assumed that the court would
issue an order of dismissal. They waited and when no order issued from the
court, they again incorrectly assumed that the regular rules apply without
seeking a clarification from the court or ascertaining exactly when the answer
should be filed. With this rationalization, they then shifted the blame for
their failure to file the answer on time to the court. We cannot allow this
kind of response in the handling of cases as the terms of the Rules of Court
are sufficiently clear in their requirements to the average lawyer. The terms
of the summons were also clear; as the court aptly stated:
In the summons issued, specific instruction was given to the defendants that within ten (10) days after service, they are required to enter their appearance and to answer the complaint within the period fixed by the Rules of Court. The period fixed by the Rules of Court is ten (10) days and not fifteen (15) days as averred by the defendants. The defendants, however, failed.[27]
Thus, the respondents had in fact
been negligent, or worse, had failed to exercise the required competence and
diligence in filing the Estavillos answer to the complaint.
Under
the circumstances of the case, the respondents penalty cannot be further
mitigated without committing an unfairness against the complainant and his son.
We remind the respondents and the IBP Board of Governors of what we said in Fil-Garcia, Inc. v. Hernandez:[28]
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Thus, he is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors Resolution No. XIX-2011-503 of
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] IBP Records, Vol. IV, Addendum.
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 2-11.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Supra note 3, par. 14.
[11] Rollo,
p. 67; Resolution dated
[12]
[13] Supra note 10.
[14] Supra note 12, par. 15.
[15] Rollo, p. 80.
[16] IBP Records, Vol. IV, pp. 3-7.
[17]
[18] IBP Records, Vol. II, pp. 33-44.
[19]
[20]
[21] Rule 70, Section 6.
[22] Supra note 2.
[23] IBP Records, Vol. IV, p. 20.
[24] Supra note 1.
[25] Supra note 6, at 42.
[26]
[27]
[28] A.C. No. 7129,