Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
ANTONIO
CONLU, Complainant, -
versus - ATTY.
IRENEO AREDONIA, JR., Respondent. |
|
A.C. No. 4955 Present: VELASCO,
JR., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD,
VILLARAMA,
JR.,* and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: September
12, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U
T I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Before the
Court is a complaint[1] for
disbarment with a prayer for damages instituted by Antonio Conlu (Antonio)
against Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. (Atty. Ireneo) on grounds of gross
negligence and dereliction of sworn duty.
Antonio was the defendant in
Civil Case No. 1048, a suit for Quieting
of Title and Recovery of a Parcel of Land commenced before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) in
The CA, per its Resolution of February
10, 1997, eventually dismissed the appeal for non-filing of the appellants
brief within the reglementary period. Antonio
got wind of the dismissal from his wife who verified the status of the case
when she happened to be in
In that motion[4] he
prepared and filed, Atty. Ireneo averred receiving the adverted February 10, 1997 CA Resolution[5]
only on April 25, 1997, adding in this regard that the person in the law office
who initially received a copy of said resolution was not so authorized. However, the CA denied the motion for having been filed out of time. As the CA would declare in a subsequent
resolution dated December 3, 1997, there was a valid receipt by Atty. Ireneo,
as shown by the registry return card with his signature, of a copy of the CAs
February 10, 1997 Resolution. Accordingly, as the CA wrote, the motion for
reconsideration of the February resolution which bore the mailing date May 8,
1997 cannot but be considered as filed way out of time.
In light of these successive
setbacks, a disgusted Antonio got the case records back from Atty. Ireneo and personally filed on October 13, 1997 another
motion for reconsideration. By
Resolution of December 3, 1997, the CA again denied[6] this
motion for the reason that the prejudicial impact of the belated filing by his
former counsel of the first motion for reconsideration binds Antonio.
Forthwith,
Antonio elevated his case to the Court on a petition for certiorari but the
Court would later dismiss the petition and his subsequent motion to reconsider
the denial.
Such was
the state of things when Antonio lodged this instant administrative case for
disbarment with a prayer for damages. To support his claim for damages, Antonio
asserts having suffered sleepless nights, mental torture and anguish as a
result of Atty. Ireneos erring ways, besides which Antonio also lost a
valuable real property subject of Civil Case No. 1048.
Following Atty.
Ireneos repeated failure to submit, as ordered, his comment, a number of extensions of time given
notwithstanding,[7] the
Court referred the instant case, docketed as Administrative Case No. 4955, to its
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for
evaluation, report and recommendation.
Acting on
OBCs Report and Recommendation[8] dated
November 23, 2000, the Court, by Resolution of January 31, 2001, directed Atty.
Ireneo to show cause within ten (10) days from noticelater successively extended
via Resolutions dated July 16 and 29, 2002why he should not be disciplinarily
dealt with or held in contempt for failing to file his comment and to comply
with the filing of it.
In separate resolutions, the Court (a)
imposed on Atty. Ireneo a fine of PhP 2,000;[9] (b)
ordered his arrest but which the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) cannot
effect for the reason: whereabouts unknown;[10]
(c) considered him as having waived his right to file comment; and (d) referred
the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
report, investigation and recommendation.[11]
At the IBP, Atty. Ireneo desisted from
addressing his administrative case, his desistance expressed by not attending the
mandatory conference or filing the required position paper. On the basis of the
pleadings, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Ireneo liable for violating
Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended his suspension from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months, with warning. The salient portions of the investigating
commissioners Report and Recommendation[12] read
as follows:
Uncontroverted and uncontested are respondents
inability to file appellants Brief, his futile attempts to mislead the Court
of Appeals that he did not personally received [sic] the resolution of
dismissal. His filing of the Motion for Reconsideration five (5) months late. [sic]
Aggravated by his failure
to file his comment in the instant administrative complaint despite his
numerous motions for extension to file the same. [sic]
He is even adamant to
comply with the show cause order of the bar confidant. The series of snobbish
actuations in several resolution of the Supreme Court enjoining him to make the
necessary pleading. [sic]
By Resolution No. XVIII-2008-523, the IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved said report and recommendation of the
CBD.[13]
We agree with the inculpatory findings
of the IBP but not as to the level of the penalty it recommended.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Atty. Ireneo had doubtless been languid in the performance of his duty as
Antonios counsel. He neglected, without reason, to file the appellants brief
before the CA. He failed, in short, to
exert his utmost ability and to give his full commitment to maintain and defend
Antonios right. Antonio, by choosing Atty. Ireneo to represent him, relied upon
and reposed his trust and confidence on the latter, as his counsel, to do whatsoever
was legally necessary to protect Antonios interest, if not to secure a
favorable judgment. Once they agree to
take up the cause of a client, lawyers, regardless of the importance of the
subject matter litigated or financial arrangements agreed upon, owe fidelity to
such cause and should always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on them.[14] And to
add insult to injury, Atty. Ireneo appeared not to have taken any effort to personally
apprise Antonio of the dismissal of the appeal, however personally embarrassing
the cause for the dismissal might have been. As mentioned earlier, Antonio came
to know about the outcome of his appeal only after his wife took the trouble of
verifying the case status when she came to
It must be remembered that a
retained counsel is expected to serve the
client with competence and diligence. This duty includes not merely reviewing
the cases entrusted to the counsels care and giving the client sound legal
advice, but also properly representing the client in court, attending scheduled
hearings, preparing and filing required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and
urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod
him or her to do so. The lawyer should
not be sitting idly by and leave the rights of the client in a state of
uncertainty.[15]
The failure to file a brief
resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence.[16]
This default translates to a violation of the injunction of Canon 18, Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respectively providing:
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 matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
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 clients request for information.
As if his lack of candor in his
professional relationship with Antonio was not abhorrent enough, Atty. Ireneo tried
to mislead the appellate court about the receipt of a copy of its February 10,
1997 Resolution dismissing the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 50075. He denied personally receiving such copy, but
the CA found and declared that he himself received said copy. The CA arrived at
this conclusion thru the process of comparing Atty. Ireneos signature appearing
in the pleadings with that in the registry return card. Both signatures belong
to one and the same person. Needless to
stress, Atty. Ireneo had under the premises indulged in deliberate falsehood,
contrary to the self-explanatory prescriptions of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon
10, Rule 10.01, which provide:
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCEDURES.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
x x x x
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not
do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. (Emphasis supplied.)
We cannot write finis to this case without delving into and
addressing Atty. Ireneos defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by
his repetitive disregard of its resolution to file his comment on the basic
complaint. After requesting and securing no less than three (3) extensions of
time to file his comment, he simply closed, so to speak, communication lines. And when ordered to give an explanation through
a show-cause directive for not complying, he asked for and was granted a 30-day
extension. But the required comment never came. When the Court eventually
directed the NBI to arrest him, he just left his last known address and could
not be located.
The Courts patience has been tested
to the limit by what in hindsight amounts to a lawyers impudence and disrespectful
bent. At the minimum, members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect,
courtesy and such other becoming conduct so essential in the promotion of
orderly, impartial and speedy justice. What Atty. Ireneo has done was the exact
opposite. What is clear to the Court by now is that Ireneo was determined all
along not to submit a comment and, in the process, delay the resolution of the
instant case. By asking several extensions of time to submit one, but without
the intention to so submit, Ireneo has effectively trifled with the Courts
processes, if not its liberality. This
cannot be tolerated. It cannot be allowed to go unpunished, if the integrity
and orderly functioning of the administration of justice is to be maintained. And
to be sure, Atty. Ireneo can neither defeat this Courts jurisdiction over him
as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse of
concealing his whereabouts.[17] Manifestly, he has fallen short of the
diligence required of every member of the Bar. The pertinent Canon of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 12 A LAWYER SHALL EXERT
EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
x x x x
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
Court processes. (Emphasis supplied.)
A lawyer may be disbarred or
suspended for gross misconduct or for transgressions defined by the rules as
grounds to strip a lawyer of professional license.[18] Considering, however, the serious consequences
of either penalty, the Court will exercise its power to disbar or suspend only
upon a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of misconduct that seriously
affects the standing of a lawyer as an officer of the court and as member of
the bar.
In Heirs of Tiburcio F. Ballesteros, Sr.
v. Apiag,[19]
the Court penalized a lawyer who failed to file a pre-trial brief and other pleadings, such as
position papers, leading to the dismissal of the case with six months
suspension. In Soriano v. Reyes,[20] We
meted a one-year suspension on a lawyer for inexcusable negligence, the latter having
failed to file a pre-trial brief leading to the dismissal of the case and
failure to prosecute in another case, and omitting to apprise complainant of
the status of the two cases with assurance of his diligent attention to them.
In this case, Atty. Ireneo
should be called to task for the interplay of the following: his inexcusable
negligence that resulted in the dismissal of Antonios appeal, coupled by his
lack of candor in not apprising Antonio of the status of his appealed case; his
attempt to mislead the CA in a vain bid to evade the consequence of the belated
filing of a motion for reconsideration; and, last but not least, his cavalier disregard
of the Courts directives primarily issued to resolve the charges brought
against him by Antonio. We deem it fitting
that Atty. Ireneo be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
year, up from the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. This should serve as a constant reminder of
his duty to respect courts of justice and to observe that degree of diligence
required by the practice of the legal profession. His being a first offender
dictates to large degree this leniency.
The prayer for damages cannot be
granted. Let alone the fact that Antonio
chose not to file his position paper before the IBP-CBD and, therefore, was
unable to satisfactorily prove his claim for damages, a proceeding for
disbarment or suspension is not in any sense a civil action; it is undertaken
and prosecuted for public welfare. It does not involve private interest and
affords no redress for private grievance.[21]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr.
is declared GUILTY of inexcusable negligence,
attempting to mislead the appellate court, misuse of Court processes, and
willful disobedience to lawful orders of the Court. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year
effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, with WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the
Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 1076 dated September 6, 2011.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 1-6, dated September 14, 1998.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Dated September 1, 2008.
[13] Dated
October 9, 2008.
[14]
Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility, as cited Angalan v. Delante, A.C. No. 7181, February 6, 2009, 578 SCRA 113,
127.
[15] Overgaard v.
[16] Perla Cia. De Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon,
337 Phil. 555 (1997).
[17] Stemmerik v. Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June
16, 2009, 589 SCRA 114, 119.
[18] Fernandez v. De Ramos-Villalon, A.C. No.
7084, February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 310, 319; citing Concepcion v. Fandio, Jr., A.C. No. 3677, June 21, 2000, 334 SCRA
137.
[19]
A.C. No. 5760, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 111.
[20]
A.C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 328.
[21] Bellosillo v. Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G.R. No. 126980, March 31, 2006, 486
SCRA 152, 162; citing Uy v. Gonzales,
Adm. Case No. 5280, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 422, 430.