FIRST DIVISION
LUCILA
S. BARBUCO,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5092
August 11, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO N.
BELTRAN,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
.
A lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence.[1]
While a lawyer may decline to render services for a person for valid
reasons,
once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe
fidelity
to that 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 wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.[2]
On July 9, 1999, Lucila
S. Barbuco filed a Sworn Complaint[3]
against Atty. Raymundo N. Beltran for malpractice of law, negligence
and
dishonesty.
It appears that on
March 31, 1998, complainant, through her son, Benito B. Sy, engaged the
services of respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal before the
Court
of Appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite,
Branch
21, in the case entitled, “Alexander Bermido, Plaintiff versus Lucila
Barbuco,
Defendant.” On August 6, 1998, complainant, through Benito B. Sy,
gave respondent the total sum of P3,500.00 for payment of the docket
fees.
Complainant’s appeal,
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 58180, was dismissed by the Court of Appeals
in a Resolution[4]
dated September 25, 1998 for failure to file Appellant’s Brief,
pursuant
to Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant found out
that her appeal had been dismissed only on June 4, 1999, when her son
went
to the Court of Appeals to verify the status of the case.
When asked to comment
on the charges filed against him,[5]
respondent Beltran averred that the docket fees were paid on time and
that
on September 22, 1998, he filed the Appellant’s Brief[6]
with the Court of Appeals. However, the appeal was
dismissed.
On October 19, 1998, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,[7]
on the ground that he received the notice to file brief on June 25,
1998;
however, on June 26, 1998, he met a vehicular accident which physically
incapacitated him for several days; and that as a result of the
accident,
he suffered head injuries which caused him to lose track of deadlines
for
the filing of pleadings.
On March 9, 1999, the
Motion for Reconsideration was denied on the ground that the brief for
defendant-appellant was filed forty-three (43) days late.[8]
On November 22, 1999,
the complaint against respondent Beltran was referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.[9]
After hearing,
Commissioner
Rebecca Villanueva-Maala of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,
submitted
on October 6, 2003 her findings and recommendation that respondent
Beltran
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years.
On October 25, 2003,
the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2003-234 affirming
the recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala but modified the
recommended
period of suspension from five (5) years to six (6) months only.
After a careful review
of the records and evidence, we find no cogent reason to deviate from
the
findings and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Respondent’s
conduct relative to the belated filing of the Appellant’s Brief falls
below
the standards exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to
their
client’s cause.
Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection
therewith shall render him liable.
An attorney is bound
to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with
utmost
diligence. Failure to file brief within the reglementary period
certainly
constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE
(43) days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
The fact that
respondent
was involved in a vehicular accident and suffered physical injuries as
a result thereof cannot serve to excuse him from filing his pleadings
on
time considering that he was a member of a law firm composed of not
just
one lawyer. This is shown by the receipt he issued to complainant
and the pleadings which he signed for and on behalf of the Beltran,
Beltran
and Beltran Law Office. As such, respondent could have asked any
of his partners in the law office to file the Appellant’s Brief for him
or, at least, to file a Motion for Extension of Time to file the said
pleading.
In B.R. Sebastian
Enterprises,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[10]
we ruled that the confusion in the office of the law firm following the
death of one of its partners is not a valid justification for failing
to
file the brief. We further ruled in the said case that upon
receipt
of the notice to file the brief, the law firm should have re-assigned
the
case to another associate.
The failure to timely
file a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the part of
respondent.
Complainant’s liability is further compounded by his failure to
maintain
an open line of communication with his client, in violation of the
provisions
of Rule 18.04, which reads:
A lawyer shall keep
the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within
a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
Clearly, respondent’s
series of inadvertence prejudiced the case of the complainant. We can
not
overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Every member of the
Bar should always bear in mind that every case that a lawyer accepts
deserves
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A
lawyer’s
fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of
the responsibilities that should be expected of him. He is mandated to
exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client within the
bounds of the law. The Code of Professional Responsibility
dictates
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and
he should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.[12]
WHEREFORE, Atty.
Raymundo
N. Beltran is found guilty of negligence and malpractice and is
SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective
immediately.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let a copy of this
Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated
Bar
of the Philippines, and to all the courts.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
[2]
Edgardo C. Perea v. Atty. Ruben Almadro, A.C. No. 5246, 20 March 2003,
399 SCRA 322, 328.
[3]
Rollo, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 2.
[5]
Id., p. 8.
[6]
Id., pp. 24-40.
[7]
Id., pp. 42-48.
[8]
Id., p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 49.
[10]
G.R. No. 41862, 7 February 1992, 206 SCRA 28.
[11]
Teodolfo Reyes v. Atty. Rolando Javier, 426 Phil. 243 (2002).
[12]
In Re: Atty. David Briones, 415 Phil. 203 (2001). |