SECOND DIVISION
LILIA
C. RONCAL,
Complainant,
A.C.
NO.
3882
July 30, 2004 -versus-
ATTY.
ORLANDO C.
PARAY,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
TINGA,
J.:
On August 10, 1992,
Lilia C. Roncal filed with the Court a letter[1]
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Orlando C. Paray (Atty. Paray) and
damages
on account of the latter’s alleged dereliction of his duties as
counsel.
Accompanying the letter is an Affidavit[2]
dated August 7, 1992 executed by the complainant claiming that the
dismissal
of her appeal in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 28051 was due to Atty. Paray’s
failure
to file a memorandum on appeal, thereby putting to naught all the time,
money and effort she spent to have her case elevated to the Court of
Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Paray filed a
Comment[3]
dated November 12, 1992 narrating the events that led to the dismissal
of the complainant’s petition as follows:
The complainant and
her husband initially retained Atty. Paray as counsel in a civil suit
for
ejectment[4]
filed against them by Conrado F. Estrella and Sergia B. Estrella with
the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan. After due
proceedings,
the MTC rendered judgment against the defendants.cralaw:red
They then appealed[5]
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan, which
affirmed
the MTC’s decision in toto. Subsequently, the complainant and her
husband hired another lawyer, a certain Atty. Teodoro P. Regino, to
prepare
and file a petition for relief from judgment on their behalf.
During
the pendency of the said petition, the complainant and her husband
retained
Atty. Paray anew.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The RTC granted the
petition for relief from judgment and allowed the complainant and her
husband
to pursue their petition for review with the Court of Appeals.[6]
On June 4, 1992, Atty.
Paray filed a motion for extension with the Court of Appeals asking for
an extension of 15 days, from June 5, 1992 or until June 20, 1992,
within
which to file the petition.[7]
The appellate court granted the motion. However, Atty. Paray
found
out that the copies of the decisions of the MTC and the RTC which were
entrusted to him were lost.[8]
Hence, on June 6, 2002, he sent his liaison officer to Rosales,
Pangasinan
to ask the complainant and her husband to secure copies of the
decisions
from the MTC and the RTC. Unfortunately, the complainant and her
husband failed to secure the needed documents.cralaw:red
Because he had to attend
his son’s graduation from high school in the United States, Atty. Paray
filed on June 19, 2002 another motion for extension, this time asking
for
an extension of 45 days from June 20, 1992 within which to file the
petition.[9]
The motion was denied and the case was dismissed.[10]
In view of the foregoing
circumstances, Atty. Paray argues that he was not responsible for the
dismissal
of the case. Rather, he ascribes fault to the complainant and her
husband for their failure to secure copies of the decisions of the MTC
and the RTC.cralaw:red
On May 5, 1993, the
Court issued a Resolution[11]
referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation,
report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case was assigned
to a commissioner who set the case for hearing on various dates,[12]
all of which Atty. Paray failed to attend.[13]
The records reveal that the notices of hearing were all returned
unserved
for the reason that Atty. Paray kept on moving to new addresses without
informing the IBP.cralaw:red
During the hearing on
June 20, 2000,[14]
the investigating commissioner issued an order requiring Atty. Paray to
explain why he continued to fail to notify the IBP of his new address,
and the parties to file their respective position papers within twenty
(20) days from notice.[15]
In compliance with this
order, the complainant filed her Position Paper[16]
on August 14, 2000 praying that Atty. Paray be required to pay her the
actual value of the lot subject of Civil Case No. 601, but that he be
exonerated
from the administrative charges she filed against him out of sympathy
for
the latter. On the other hand, Atty. Paray filed his Position
Paper[17]
on August 18, 2000[18]
reiterating his prayer for the dismissal of the complaint.cralaw:red
In her Report and Recommendation[19]
dated June 19, 2002, the investigating commissioner found that Atty.
Paray
failed to fulfill his duties as counsel for the complainant and her
husband
and accordingly recommended that he be suspended from the practice of
law
for three (3) months. The investigating commissioner also
recommended
that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it prays for the payment of
the value of the lot subject of Civil Case No. 601.cralaw:red
We agree with the findings
of the investigating commissioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall not
neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith
shall render him liable.” Hence, the Court, in Guiang v.
Antonio[20]
and Villaluz v. Armenta,[21]
suspended lawyers from the practice of law for failing to appeal their
respective client’s cases within the prescribed period. These
cases
are squarely applicable herein.cralaw:red
The excuses offered
by Atty. Paray, i.e., that he lost the copies of the decisions of the
MTC
and the RTC which he needed for the petition and that the complainant
was
uncooperative when requested to secure copies of these documents, are
unpersuasive,
trivial, and unsatisfactory. Atty. Paray should be reminded of the
Court’s
pronouncement in Guiang v. Antonio, supra, that a diligent lawyer
should
obtain copies of the needed decisions himself. More so in this case
because
Atty. Paray admitted that the copies of the decisions were entrusted to
him, only that he lost them.cralaw:red
Atty. Paray’s transgression
is compounded by his utter disrespect for the authority of the IBP as
manifested
by his repeated failure to appear before the investigating
commissioner.
In Priscila L. Toledo v. Erlinda Abalos,[22]
the Court suspended a lawyer for a period of one (1) month solely for
failing
to acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to its
authority
over her as a member of the IBP. A commensurate penalty must be
imposed
on Atty. Paray.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
Court is not unmindful of the fact that the complainant now asks the
Court
to exonerate Atty. Paray from the administrative charges she filed
against
him and prays that he be required to pay the actual value of the lot
subject
of Civil Case No. 601 instead.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Both prayers should
be denied.cralaw:red
In administrative proceedings,
the complainant or the person who calls the attention of the court to
the
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
interest
in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper
management
of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the
respondent
may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of the complainant
or his withdrawal of the charges.[23]
In the instant case,
the Court is convinced that Atty. Paray violated the Code of
Professional
Responsibility and should be subjected to disciplinary action
notwithstanding
the complainant’s change of heart.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the issue of damages,
the Court has repeatedly ruled that it is not a collecting agency.
Besides,
disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress
for private grievances.[24]
Hence, the prayer for damages should be denied.cralaw:red
The investigating commissioner
recommended that Atty. Paray be suspended from the practice of law for
three (3) months. However, in Guiang v. Antonio, supra, and Villaluz v.
Armenta, supra, we suspended the lawyers involved for a period of six
(6)
months for failing to perfect their appeal within the prescribed
period.
We see no reason to divert from these rulings. In fact, we have more
reason
to sanction Atty. Paray for his disrespect of the authority of the IBP.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, ATTY. ORLANDO O. PARAY is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that the
repetition
of a similar violation will be dealt with more severely. He is further
DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to the
Court
within five (5) days from such receipt.cralaw:red
Let a copy of this Decision
be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the
Bar,
and copies furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines,
and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]Rollo,
p. 1.
[2]Id.
at 2.
[3]Id.
at 23.
[4]Docketed
as Civil Case No. 576.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]The
appeal was docketed as Civil Case No. 601-R.
[6]Supra,
note 1 at 36-39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]Id.
at 40-42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]Id.
at 26, Comment of Atty. Paray.
[9]Id.
at 44-45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]Id.
at 47.
[11]Id.
at 60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]December
3, 1997, January 17, 2000, February 25, 2000 and April 18, 2000, June
20,
2000, October 29, 2001; December 3, 2001 and January 16, 2002; Rollo,
pp.
113, 119, 120, 126, 161,167 and 169.
[13]Supra,
note 1 at 131, 166, 168, 217, 216, 217.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]Prior
to the June 20, 2000 scheduled hearing, the investigating commissioner
learned that Atty. Paray’s new address is 2017 A and E Building,
Ortigas
Avenue, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila and sent a notice there for
the subsequent hearing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]Supra,
note 1 at 132.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]Id.
at 139-140.
[17]Id.
at 142-147.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]After
requesting and being granted two (2) extensions of time on July 15,
2000
and August 2, 2000.
[19]Supra,
note 1 at 214-220.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]A.C.
No. 2473, February 3, 1993, 218 SCRA 381, 384.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]A.M.
No. RTJ-98-1397, 348 Phil. 784, 776 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]A.C.
No. 5141, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 419, 422.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]Fernando
C. Cruz, et al. v. Ernesto C. Jacinto, A.C. No. 5235, March 22, 2000,
328
SCRA 636, citing Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, 285
SCRA
93 (1998).
[24]Monica
A. Villaseñor v. Patricia S.J. De Leon, A.M. No. P-03-1685,
March
20, 2003, 399 SCRA 342, citing Martinez v. Munoz, A.M. No.
P-94-1006,
249 SCRA 14 (1995), and Taboada v. Cabrera, A.M. No. 980-CTJ, 78 SCRA
235
(1977). |