EN BANC
SUSAN
CUIZON,
Complainant,
A.
C.
No. 4334
July 7, 2004 - versus-
ATTY.
RODOLFO
MACALINO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
The saga of a client’s
one decade-long travails caused by a recalcitrant lawyer who defrauds
his
client and flouts the directives of the highest court of the land must
deservedly end in tribulation for the lawyer and in victory for the
higher
ends of justice. The opening verses of the narrative may have been
composed
by the lawyer, but it is this Court that will have to, as it now does,
write finis to this sordid tale, as well as to the lawyer’s prized
claim
as a member of the Bar.cralaw:red
This administrative
case against respondent Atty. Rodolfo Macalino was initiated by a
Letter-Complaint[1]
dated October 27, 1994 filed by Susan Cuizon with the Office of the
Court
Administrator charging the respondent with Grave Misconduct.cralaw:red
The antecedents[2]
are as follows:
The legal services of
the respondent was sought by the complainant in behalf of her husband
Antolin
Cuizon who was convicted for Violation of Dangerous Drug Act of 1972.
When
the spouses had no sufficient means to pay the legal fees, the
respondent
suggested that he be given possession of complainant’s Mistubishi car,
which was delivered to the respondent. Later respondent offered to buy
the car for Eighty Five Thousand Pesos (P85,000.00) for which he paid a
down payment of Twenty Four Thousand Pesos (P24,000.00). After the sale
of the car, respondent failed to attend to the case of Antolin Cuizon,
so complainant was forced to engage the services of another lawyer.cralaw:red
The respondent was required
to comment on the Complaint lodged against him as early as December 5,
1994.cralaw:red
On December 29, 1995
the respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be meted
with
disciplinary action or declared in contempt for failure to comply with
the order of the court, to comment on complaint.cralaw:red
On June 17, 1996, for
failure to comply with the previous orders of the court, a fine of Five
Hundred Pesos (P500.00) was imposed upon him and the order requiring
him
to file his comment on the complaint was reiterated.cralaw:red
On July 24, 1996 respondent
paid the Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) fine imposed on him, however he
failed
to fully comply with the order of the court.cralaw:red
On December 5, 1996
the Supreme Court received a letter from Antolin Cuizon informing the
court
that the respondent again committed another infraction of the law by
issuing
a check against a closed account.cralaw:red
On February 12, 1997
the Supreme Court issued a resolution increasing the imposed fine on
respondent
in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) to One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00)
and again the order requiring the respondent to file his comment was
reiterated.cralaw:red
On Noveber 13, 1997
the cashier of the Disbursement and Collection Division issued a
certification
that the imposed fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) has not been
paid
by the respondent.cralaw:red
On December 10, 1997
the Supreme Court issued a warrant of arrest directing the National
Bureau
of Investigation to detain the respondent until further Orders from the
Court.cralaw:red
On February 23, 1998,
Allen M. Mendoza Intelligence Agent of the NBI of San Fernando,
Pampanga
rendered a Report and Return of the Service of Warrant of Arrest to the
effect that the warrant could not be served for reason that the subject
is no longer residing at his given address.cralaw:red
On April 22, 1998 the
court again issued another resolution requesting the complainants to
furnish
the court with the correct and present address of the respondent.cralaw:red
In compliance with this
directive, the complainant reported that the respondent had not changed
his residence. In fact, upon the information given by his own son, the
respondent comes home at midnight and leaves at dawn.[3]
In the Resolution[4]
dated July 27, 1998, the Court resolved to consider the Resolution of
December
10, 1997 finding the respondent guilty of contempt of court and
ordering
his imprisonment until he complies with the Resolution of February 12,
1997, requiring him to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to submit his
comment
on the instant administrative complaint served on the respondent by
substituted
service. The Court likewise declared the respondent to have waived his
right to file his comment on the administrative complaint and referred
the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation,
report and recommendation.cralaw:red
The Investigating Commissioner
forthwith filed her Report and Recommendation[5]
dated October 27, 1998 finding the respondent unfit to remain a member
of the Bar and recommending that he be disbarred. The IBP adopted the
Report
and Recommendation with the modification that the respondent instead be
suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years.[6]
In its Resolution[7]
dated July 19, 2000, the Court resolved to return the case to the IBP
which,
in turn, remanded the case to the Investigating Commissioner for
further
investigation and compliance with procedural due process.[8]
As directed, the Investigating
Commissioner conducted further investigation and submitted her Report
and
Recommendation[9]
dated November 16, 1999 stating that the respondent failed to appear
during
the scheduled hearings on January 5, 1999 and March 23, 1999. Moreover,
despite his counsel’s motion for extension of time within which to file
a comment on the complaint having been granted, the respondent failed
to
file his comment. Hence, the Investigating Commissioner reiterated her
recommendation that the respondent be disbarred.cralaw:red
The IBP modified the
Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation and urged instead that the
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for five (5) years.[10]
The Court noted the recommendation in its Resolution[11]
dated September 8, 2003.cralaw:red
It is axiomatic that
no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person
who may wish to become his client. However, once he agrees to
take
up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
must serve his client with competence and diligence, and champion the
latter’s
cause with whole-hearted fidelity.[12]
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney
who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to
its conclusion.[13]
In the instant case,
after agreeing to represent the complainant’s husband, taking
possession
of their car and persuading the complainant to sell the same to him for
a nominal amount, the respondent refused to carry out his duties as
counsel
prompting the complainant to secure the services of another lawyer to
defend
her husband. The respondent clearly breached his obligation under
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection
therewith shall render him liable.cralaw:red
The respondent’s infraction
is compounded by the fact that he issued a check in favor of the
complainant’s
husband which was later dishonored for having been drawn against a
closed
account.[14]
Such conduct indicates the respondent’s unfitness for the trust and
confidence
reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral
character
as to render him unworthy of public confidence and constitutes a ground
for disciplinary action.[15]
The fact that the respondent
went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of the warrant of
arrest
issued by the Court exacerbates his offense. His repeated failure
to comply with the Court’s Resolutions requiring him to file his
Comment
on the Complaint should also be taken into account. By his
repeated
cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of
respect
for the authority of the Court.[16]
As an officer of the
court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the
court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
shown
by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.[17]
A lawyer who willfully disobeys a court order requiring him to do
something
may not only be cited and punished for contempt but may also be
disciplined
as an officer of the court.[18]
Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of
Court
provides that:
A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by
the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which
he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
The foregoing acts of
the
respondent constitute gross misconduct which renders him unfit to
discharge
the duties of his office and unworthy of the trust and confidence
reposed
on him as an officer of the court.[19]
His disbarment is consequently warranted.[20]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Rodolfo Macalino is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of this decision be
attached
to the respondent’s personal records and furnished the Integrated Bar
of
the Philippines and all courts in the country.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J.,
Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.
______________________
Endnotes
[1]Rollo,
Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
[2]Id.
at 78-80, Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner
Milagros
V. San Juan dated October 27, 1998.
[3]Id.
at 71.
[4]Id.
at 72.
[5]Supra,
note 2.
[6]Supra,
note 1 at 75, Resolution No. XIV-00-138 dated April 7, 2000.
[7]Id.
at 81.
[8]Rollo,
Vol. II, p. 4, Resolution No. XIII-98-294 dated January 28, 1999.
[9]Supra,
note 1 at 76-77.
[10]Supra,
note 8 at 17, Resolution No. XV-2003-335 dated June 21, 2003.
[11]Id.
at 23.
[12]Santiago
v. Fojas, A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995, 248 SCRA 68, citations
omitted;
Curimatmat v. Gojar, A.C. No. 4411, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA 123.
[13]Orcino
v. Gaspar, A.C. No. 3773, September 24, 1997, 279 SCRA 379, citations
omitted.
[14]The
complainant’s husband, Antolin Cuizon, consequently filed a
Complaint-Affidavit
against the respondent for violation of B.P. 22; Supra, note 1 at 56-58.
[15]Atty.
Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520. (1998).
[16]Jardin
v. Villar, A.C. No. 5474, August 23, 2003.
[17]Villaflor
v. Sarita, A.C.-CBD No. 471, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA 129.
[18]Agpalo,
ruben, The Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, 1991,
citing
Casals v. Cusi, Jr., No. L-35766, July 12, 1973, 52 SCRA 58; De Leon v.
Torres, 99 Phil. 463 (1956); In re Almacen, No. L-27654, February
18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562; and Balasabas v. Aquilizan, No. L-51414,
July
31, 1981, 106 SCRA 489.
[19]martin,
ruperto, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Eighth Edition, 1984, citing People
v. Smith, 93 Adm. St. Rep. 206.
[20]Atty.
Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, supra. |