Republic of the
Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND
DIVISION
|
EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 9387
Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ,
SERENO,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: June
20, 2012 |
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U
T I O N
SERENO, J.:
This is a disbarment case filed by
Emilia Hernandez (complainant) against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla (respondent)
of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling
of her case.
The records disclose that complainant
and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC).
In a Decision[1]
dated 28 June 2002, penned by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang (Judge Carandang), the
RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale executed in favor of complainant be
cancelled; and that the latter pay the complainant therein, Elisa Duigan
(Duigan), attorneys fees and moral damages.
Complainant and her husband filed their
Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered them
to file their Appellants Brief. They chose respondent to represent them in the
case. On their behalf, he filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants
Brief. Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The CA granted the
Motion in a Resolution[2]
dated 16 December 2003.
No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of
the Resolution dismissing the appeal was filed by the couple. Complainant
claims that because respondent ignored the Resolution, he acted with deceit,
unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law.[3]
Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal, because respondent never
informed them of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims that she asked
respondent several times about the status of the appeal, but despite inquiries
he deliberately withheld response [sic], to the damage and prejudice of the
spouses.[4]
The Resolution became final and
executory on 8 January 2004. Complainant was informed of the Resolution
sometime in July 2005, when the Sheriff of the RTC came to her house and
informed her of the Resolution.
On 9 September 2005, complainant filed
an Affidavit of Complaint[5]
with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), seeking the disbarment of respondent on the following grounds: deceit,
malpractice, and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for moral damages in the
amount of ₱350,000.
Through an Order[6]
dated 12 September 2005, Director of Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent
to submit an answer to the Complaint. In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer,[7] respondent prayed
for the outright dismissal of the Complaint.
Respondent explained that he was not
the lawyer of complainant. He averred that prior to the mandatory conference set
by the IBP on 13 December 2005, he had never met complainant, because it was her
husband who had personally transacted with him. According to respondent, the
husband despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because according
to him the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or three days.[8] Thus, respondent
claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed that
it is this pleading which was required.[9]
Before filing the Memorandum, respondent
advised complainants husband to settle the case. The latter allegedly
gestured approval of the advice.[10]
After the husband of complainant picked up the
Memorandum for filing, respondent never saw or heard from him again and thus
assumed that the husband heeded his advice and settled the case. When respondent
received an Order from the CA requiring him to file a comment on the Motion to
Dismiss filed by Duigan, he instructed his office staff to contact Mr.
Hernandez thru available means of communication, but to no avail.[11] Thus, when complainants
husband went to the office of respondent to tell the latter that the Sheriff of
the RTC had informed complainant of the CAs Resolution dismissing the case, respondent
was just as surprised. The lawyer exclaimed, KALA KO BA NAKIPAG AREGLO NA
KAYO.[12]
In his 5 January 2009 Report,[13] IBP Investigating
Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found that respondent violated Canons 5,
17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code). He
recommended that respondent be suspended from practicing law from 3 to 6
months.
The board of governors of the IBP
issued Resolution No. XIX-2010-452 on 28 August 2010. Therein, they resolved to
adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.[14] He prayed for the
relaxation of the application of the Canons of the Code. On 14 January 2012,
the IBP board of governors passed Resolution No. XX-2012-17[15] partly granting
his Motion and reducing the penalty imposed to one-month suspension from the
practice of law.
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court, acting Director for Bar Discipline Dennis A.B. Funa, through a letter[16] addressed to then Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona, transmitted the documents pertaining to the
disbarment Complaint against respondent.
We adopt the factual findings of the board
of governors of the IBP. This Court, however, disagrees with its Decision to
reduce the penalty to one-month suspension. We thus affirm the six-month
suspension the Board originally imposed in its 28 August 2010 Resolution.
Respondent insists that he had never
met complainant prior to the mandatory conference set for the disbarment Complaint
she filed against him. However, a perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in
the appellate court revealed that he had signed as counsel for the
defendant-appellants therein, including complainant and her husband.[17] The pleading starts
with the following sentence: DEFENDANT[S]-APPELLANTS, by counsel, unto this
Honorable Court submit the Memorandum and further allege that: x x x.[18] Nowhere does the
document say that it was filed only on behalf of complainants husband.
It is further claimed by respondent
that the relation created between him and complainants husband cannot be
treated as a client-lawyer relationship, viz:
It is no more than a client needing a legal document
and had it prepared by a lawyer for a fee. Under the factual milieu and circumstances,
it could not be said that a client entrusted to a lawyer handling and
prosecution of his case that calls for the strict application of the Code; x x x[19]
As proof that none of them ever
intended to enter into a lawyer-client relationship, he also alleges that complainants
husband never contacted him after the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal. According
to respondent, this behavior was very unusual if he really believed that he
engaged the formers services.[20]
Complainant pointed out in her Reply[21] that respondent was
her lawyer, because he accepted her case and an acceptance fee in the amount of
₱7,000.
According to respondent, however, [C]ontrary
to the complainants claim that he charged ₱7,000 as acceptance fee,
the fee was only for the preparation of the pleading which is even low for a
Memorandum of Appeal: x x x.[22]
Acceptance of money from a client
establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelity to the clients cause.[23] Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case,
it is that lawyers duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.[24] Respondent has
failed to fulfill this duty.
According to respondent, he merely
drafted the pleading that complainants husband asked from him. Respondent also
claims that he filed a Memorandum of Appeal, because he honestly believed that
this was the pleading required, based on what complainants husband said.
The IBP Investigating Commissioners
observation on this matter, in the 5 January 2009 Report, is correct.
Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be
necessary, it was respondents duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in
appeals from RTC decisions, viz:
Having seen the Decision dated 18 June 2002 of the
trial court, respondent should have known that the mode of appeal to the Court
of Appeals for said Decision is by ordinary appeal under Section 2(a) Rule 41
of the1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. In all such cases, Rule 44 of the
said Rules applies.[25]
When the RTC ruled against complainant
and her husband, they filed a Notice of Appeal. Consequently, what should apply
is the rule on ordinary appealed cases or Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil
Procedure. Rule 44 requires that the appellants brief be filed after the
records of the case have been elevated to the CA. Respondent, as a litigator, was
expected to know this procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads:
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the
law and jurisprudence.
The obligations of lawyers as a
consequence of their Canon 5 duty have been expounded in Dulalia, Jr. v. Cruz,[26]
to wit:
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers
is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and
maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be
well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments,
recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant
with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they
may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as
members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.
In his MR, respondent begged for the
consideration of the IBP, claiming that the reason for his failure to file the proper
pleading was that he did not have enough time to acquaint himself thoroughly
with the factual milieu of the case. The IBP reconsidered and thereafter
significantly reduced the penalty originally imposed.
Respondents plea for leniency should
not have been granted.
The supposed lack of time given to
respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his
negligence.
Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a
lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. While it
is true that respondent was not complainants lawyer from the trial to the
appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently
study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough time to
study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainants
husband only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellants
Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the
proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come up with, just to
beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.[27]
Moreover, respondent does not deny
that he was given notice of the fact that he filed the wrong pleading. However,
instead of explaining his side by filing a comment, as ordered by the appellate
court, he chose to ignore the CAs Order. He claims that he was under the
presumption that complainant and her husband had already settled the case,
because he had not heard from the husband since the filing of the latters Memorandum
of Appeal.
This
explanation does not excuse respondents actions.
First of all, there were several
remedies that respondent could have availed himself of, from the moment he
received the Notice from the CA to the moment he received the disbarment Complaint
filed against him. But because of his negligence, he chose to sit on the case
and do nothing.
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the
duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so
amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code, which reads:
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.
If it were true that all attempts to
contact his client proved futile, the least respondent could have done was to
inform the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. He
could have thus explained why he was no longer the counsel of complainant and
her husband in the case and informed the court that he could no longer contact
them.[28] His failure to
take this measure proves his negligence.
Lastly, the failure of respondent to
file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigans Motion to Dismiss is negligence
on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in
handling the clients case, viz:
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Lawyers
should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence
in fulfilling their duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.[29]
Respondent has failed to live up to
his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates his duties to his client, he
engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for which he should be held
accountable.[30]
WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02,
18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS
and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be
entered into the personal records of respondent as a member of the bar and
furnished to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of the country for their
information and guidance.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chairperson
ARTURO D.
BRION JOSE PORTUGAL
PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 14-24.
[2] Id. at 43-44.
[3] Id. at 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 1-2.
[6] Id. at 45.
[7] Id. at 52-56.
[8] Id at 53.
[9] Id at 54.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 2-15.
[14] Id. at 16-20.
[15] Rollo, Vol. II (page not indicated).
[16] Id. at.
[17] See rollo, Vol. I, p. 39.
[18] Id. at 25.
[19] Rollo, Vol. II, p. 18.
[20] Id at 19.
[21] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 76-77.
[22] Rollo, Vol. II, p. 18.
[23] Fernandez v. Atty. Cabrera, 463 Phil. 352 (2003).
[24] Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18.
[25] Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 9-10
[26] A.C. No. 6854, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 244, 255 citing Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, 483 Phil. 94, 105(2004).
[27] Rollo, Vol. II, p. 18.
[28] 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. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 26)
[29] Perea v. Atty. Almadro, 447 Phil. 434 (2003).
[30] Fernandez, supra note 23.