PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
.
FIRST DIVISION
RASMUS G. ANDERSON, JR.,
Petitioner,
-versus-
A.C. No. 3523
January 17, 2005
ATTY. REYNALDO A. CARDEÑO,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
AZCUNA, J.:
For resolution is an administrative case against Atty. Reynaldo A.
Cardeño for malpractice and neglect of duty, stemming from his
alleged neglect or deliberate mishandling of a case involving herein
petitioner, resulting to the latter’s prejudice.
After receipt of the complaint and the corresponding comment thereto,
this Court, on October 17, 1990, referred the matter to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
On April 6, 1998, this Court received a Manifestation from the IBP
Investigating Commissioner Victoria Gonzales de los Reyes stating that
when the case was referred to the IBP, the same was initially handled
by Commissioner George Briones. In view of the fact that the case had
only been recently re-assigned to her, she needed time within which to
investigate as well as prepare the required report and recommendation.
Thereafter, on March 13, 2001, Commissioner de los Reyes submitted her
Report and Recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors. In turn, the
IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XIV-2001-187, dated April
29, 2001, remanding the Report and Recommendation to the Investigating
Commissioner, requiring the latter “to make the recommendation clearer
and review the report.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Upon review of the records, the Investigating Commissioner affirmed her
findings and maintained her recommendation. In turn, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted the said report, with a modification of the
recommended penalty of three months suspension, to a penalty of six
months suspension, from the practice of law.
The records show the following antecedent facts:cralaw:red
Complainant Rasmus G. Anderson, Jr., an American citizen from Kodiak,
Alaska, USA, filed an action before the then Court of First Instance of
Rizal (Pasig), to recover title and possession of a parcel of land
against the spouses Juanito Maybituin and Rosario Cerrado, and Fernando
Ramos. The case was dismissed by the trial court, which declared the
defendants the true and lawful owners of their respective portions of
the land in question.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), 3rd Civil Cases Division, in
AC-G.R. CV No. 68459, modified
[1]
the decision of
the trial court, stating:cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
decision is hereby modified by ruling that the respective Torrens
Titles in the names of the defendants spouses Maybituin and Fernando
Ramos are maintained at this stage but without prejudice on the part of
the plaintiff to institute an action for reconveyance thereof after
determining his rightful share from the estate of his late father.
Costs
against the appellant.
SO
ORDERED.
[2]
The CA judgment was not appealed and, thereafter, it was duly entered.
On February 16, 1985, Anderson, Jr., through his counsel Atty. Cesar S.
de Guzman, filed an Amended Complaint before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, docketed as Civil Case No.
0110-B, entitled “Rasmus Anderson, Jr., Plaintiff v. Spouses
Juanito Maybituin and Rosario Cerrado, et al., Defendants.”
[3]
It was at this stage of the proceedings when Atty. Cesar S. de Guzman
died. Anderson, Jr. was now without a counsel to represent him. Upon
referral by a friend, Anderson, Jr. engaged the services of herein
respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeño.
On July 19, 1990, Rasmus G. Anderson, Jr., filed an administrative
complaint
[4]
before this
Court wherein he alleged that respondent Atty. Reynaldo A.
Cardeño caused “the loss” or the adverse ruling against him in
the aforementioned case before the RTC, Civil Case No. 0110-B.
Specifically, complainant alleged the following:cralaw:red
1.) That when the
respondents in the civil case filed a Demurrer to Evidence, Atty.
Cardeño did not file an opposition thereto and did not appear at
the formal hearing set for the purpose of considering the merits of the
demurrer. Thus, in addition to finding merit in the demurrer, the trial
court, noting the non-appearance of Atty. Cardeño, assumed that
even he, the plaintiff’s counsel, appeared convinced that there was
merit, validity and reasonableness in the demurrer filed;
2.)
That after the trial court issued an Order finding the respondents’
demurrer to evidence meritorious, Atty. Cardeño did not even
file a Motion for Reconsideration thereof, which in turn caused the
same order to become final and executory;
3.)
That even prior to the above events and in view of what the complainant
perceived to be respondent lawyer’s loss of interest in the case,
complainant verbally told Atty. Cardeño to withdraw as his
counsel. However, Atty. Cardeño allegedly insisted on continuing
to represent the complainant as the case was already in its closing
stage.
Complainant concludes that Atty. Cardeño abused his client’s
trust and confidence and violated his oath as a lawyer in failing to
defend his client’s cause to the very end. Complainant prays that Atty.
Cardeño be disbarred.
When asked to comment, Atty. Cardeño replied:cralaw:red
1.) That
complainant was being ungrateful to him. In the first place, he was
only asked by a good friend of the complainant Anderson, Jr., to step
into the shoes of the latter’s deceased counsel. He accommodated the
request and took the case, even without personally meeting the
complainant, as the latter was residing in the United States;
2.)
That as a client, complainant Anderson, Jr., did not give him full
cooperation. Although voluminous records were turned over to him, they
were “in disarray”. Atty. Cardeño alleges that when he began
representing the complainant in court, he had to “proceed and appear
with only half the information[] and background[] of the case, and not
knowing the person he was representing.” He allegedly did his best to
familiarize himself with the case, although there were several
questions left unanswered by the complainant’s good friend;
3.)
That their first meeting happened at the time he was about to present
their last witness. At that time, Anderson, Jr.’s deposition had
already been taken by his former counsel, now deceased. Atty.
Cardeño then asked Anderson, Jr., about the regularity of the
taking of said deposition, and the latter assured him that his former
counsel had exhaustively examined him and that said deposition had been
regularly taken;
4.)
That the same was the first and only occasion when he personally met
complainant. At no time during said meeting did complainant ask him to
withdraw from the case;
5.)
That from the records he had on hand, and based on the reputation of
complainant’s deceased counsel, Atty. Cardeño saw no need to
present complainant again to testify in court. This was also in view of
the fact that complainant was then in a hurry to leave the country, and
also because of complainant’s assurances that the deposition previously
made would suffice;
6.)
That it was a “big surprise” for him later to discover that the taking
of the deposition was irregular as it was done without the presence of
counsels and parties, and without the proper notices. This led the
other party to file a demurrer to evidence;
7.)
That the “biggest blow and surprise” to him was when he was approached
by “good friends” of the complainant and these friends told him that
“they have good access and have made arrangements with the Presiding
Judge.” He was asked by these friends to prepare the motion for
reconsideration, which he “obligingly did” and thereafter he gave said
motion to these friends, for them to file. However, these friends did
not furnish or return a copy of said motion for his files and reference;
8.)
That true to his oath as a lawyer, Atty. Cardeño considers the
representations of the complainant’s good friends to be in bad taste;
that he “could not join complainant’s good friends in their plans to
corrupt” the judge; that he considers this course of action of these
friends of the complainant to imply that “he is no longer needed as a
lawyer and that they have made their own ways”;
9.)
That because of these actions of the friends of the complainant which
respondent considers contrary to his duty as an officer of the court,
and also against the respect due to the courts, respondent asked to be
relieved of his duties as counsel but said request was refused.
Thus, respondent Atty. Cardeño concluded that complainant cannot
accuse him of deliberately causing their defeat in the case when he,
Atty. Cardeño, did his best with such little information,
support and cooperation given by the complainant and the latter’s
friends. It was in fact complainant and his friends who chose to take
“another path” to deal with the case. Complainant, he claims,
erroneously thinks that a lawyer must do everything, even crooked or
illegal acts, in order to win a case. Atty. Cardeño then
asserted that he has to uphold his oath as a lawyer and so he refused
when complainant’s friends proposed to employ acts to corrupt the judge
or proceed with the case in dubious ways.
In the aforesaid Report and Recommendation of IBP Commissioner Victoria
G. de los Reyes, it was found:cralaw:red
After having
considered the position taken by each party in the instant case, this
Commission has arrived at a conclusion that there is apparent lack of
interest on the part of the Complainant to further pursue his case. The
complainant could have appeared personally and present his evidence or
could have his deposition taken to support the allegations contained in
his complaint. What he did was just to send a representative by the
name of Bienvenido Maregmen. Clearly, this is not sufficient to show
the needed enthusiasm and interest to support his accusations against
the respondent.
We sustain the
respondent in his position that he should be given the opportunity to
confront the complainant and cross-examine him. Here, the complainant
failed to appear despite the several settings of hearings in this case.
Based on this alone, this Commission could have recommended the
dismissal of the instant complaint for failure of the complainant to
substantiate his charges against the respondent.
However, the
respondent has indubitably failed to perform an obligation which he
owed to his client, the herein complainant. The respondent himself
categorically stated in his Comment filed with the Honorable Supreme
Court on October 2, 1990 that he prepared a Motion for Reconsideration
in the case entitled “Rasmus Anderson v. Juanito Maybituin, et al.”,
Civil Case No. 0110-B, then pending in the Regional Trial Court of
Rizal, Branch 67-Binangonan. But that certain “good friends” of the
complainant made representations to him that they already made
arrangements with the presiding judge who they claimed had already been
“bought”. Respondent allowed these persons to take over in the filing
of the Motion for Reconsideration and did not even bother to check with
the Court if the same has been filed or not.
Clearly, the
respondent was guilty of neglect of duty and this is a violation of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics, which provides that a
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence;
particularly, Rule 18.03 thereof which states that “a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable”. He likewise breached his
duty to the Honorable Supreme Court to report “corrupt” judges for
appropriate disciplinary action with the aim of improving the quality
of justice and in helping restore the people’s faith in our judicial
system.
[5]
As
aforestated, the IBP Board of Governors thereafter issued Resolution
XVI-2004-68 dated February 27, 2004, which “x x x ADOPTED and APPROVED,
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner x x x,
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
and the applicable laws and rules, with modification, and considering
respondent’s violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility x x x” recommended that Atty. Reynaldo
Cardeño be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months
and that he be warned that a graver penalty would be imposed should he
commit the same offense in future.
This Court sustains the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board
of Governors.
It is undisputed that Atty. Cardeño was engaged by the
complainant as counsel. By accepting the case, respondent should have
known the attendant responsibilities that came with the lawyer-client
relationship.
These imperatives were pointedly explained in Pariñas v. Atty.
Oscar P. Paguinto:
[6]
Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of
his client. When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied
representation that he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill
and ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his
best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to
him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the
pursuit or defense of the case.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case.
Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with
dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his
oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases as he
can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients' interests will suffer.
It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle
the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal
work.
The lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and
ability in handling his cases. A license to practice law is a guarantee
by the courts to the public that the licensee possesses sufficient
skill, knowledge and diligence to manage [his] cases. The legal
profession demands from a lawyer the vigilance and attention expected
of a good father of a family.
[7]
Thus, respondent’s defenses that the complainant was “uncooperative” as
a client, that the voluminous records turned over to him were in
disarray, and that the complainant did not disclose to him certain
particulars of the case, are all unavailing.
First, it was incumbent upon Atty. Cardeño to insist on his
client’s participation in the proceedings in the case. While the
complainant shares the responsibility for the lack of communication
between lawyer and client, Atty. Cardeño should not have
depended entirely on the information his client gave or the time his
client wished to give them. As a lawyer representing the cause of his
client, he should have taken more control over the handling of the
case. Knowing that his client was based in the United States should,
with more reason, have moved him to secure all the legal means
available to him either to continue representing his client effectively
or to make the necessary manifestation in court, with the client’s
conformity, that he was withdrawing as counsel of record. That his
client did not agree to terminate his services is a mere allegation
that has not been substantiated.
Thus, in view of the fact that he remained counsel of record for the
complainant, it was highly irregular for him to entrust the filing of
the Motion for Reconsideration to other people who did not lawfully
appear interested in the subject litigation.
In the same case of Paguinto, citing Gamalinda v. Alcantara,
[8]
this Court
stated:cralaw:red
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He shall serve his client
with competence and diligence, and his duty of entire devotion to his
client's cause not only requires, but entitles him to employ every
honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to
present every defense provided by law to enable the latter's cause to
succeed. An attorney's duty to safeguard the client's interests
commences from his retainer until his effective release from the case
or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation.
During that period, he is expected to take such reasonable steps and
such ordinary care as his client's interests may require.
[9]
The Court therein declared that a lawyer’s failure to do so violates
Canon 18 of the Code. It added that the said rule is clear in its
mandate that a lawyer should not undertake a legal service that he is
not qualified to render, nor should a lawyer handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation. A lawyer has the duty to prepare for
trial with diligence and deliberate speed and he should not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, for his negligence shall render him
liable.
[10]
From the records it is evident that Atty. Cardeño has fallen
short of the professional standards this Court has set for members of
the Bar. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty subjects him to
disciplinary action. Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is
a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent
intellectually, academically and morally. This Court has been exacting
in its expectations for the members of the Bar always to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act
or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public.
[11]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeño is hereby found guilty of violating
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his lawyer's
oath. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice and is WARNED that any similar infraction
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in the record of respondent as
a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.
[1] In
essence, the Court of Appeals recognized the prior sale made in favor
of Anderson, Jr. which was registered with the Register of Deeds.
However, on the basis of Anderson, Jr.’s own allegation that the money
used to buy the property was part of the estate of his father, the CA
ruled that part of the property also belongs to his mother and/or any
other child who survived his father. Hence, there was still a need to
determine who the heirs were and their exact shares. After that
determination, according to the CA, only then can Anderson, Jr. claim
his actual share in the disputed property.
[2]
Rollo, p. 77; Annex “A”.
[3]
The complaint mentioned the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
alleged, in connection with the pronouncements therein, that Anderson,
Jr. was the only heir entitled to the property in question, he being
the only issue from the marriage of Amanda de los Santos and Rasmus
Anderson, Sr. and that the property was bought on his behalf by his
mother from his share in the estate of his deceased father. He
prayed, yet again, to be declared the true and lawful owner of the
property in question.
[4]
Rollo, p.1.
[5]
IBP Report and Recommendation, pp. 4-5.
[6]
A.C. No. 6297, July 13, 2004.
[7]
Id. at 6-7.
[8]
206 SCRA 468 (1992).
[9]
Supra, note 6 at 7-8.
[10]
Id. at 8.
[11]
De Guzman v. Atty. Emmanuel M. Basa, A.C. No. 5554. June 29,
2004, pp. 11-12.
|
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2004 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|