THIRD DIVISION
JENO A.
PILAPIL,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5843
January 13, 2003 - versus -
ATTY.
GERARDO
CARILLO,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
Puno,
J.:
On January 19,1999,
complainant Jeno A. Pilapil filed with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
(IBP), Cebu Chapter a complaint against respondent Atty. Gerardo
Carillo
for negligence in the performance of his duties as counsel. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Complaint alleged
that Pilapil filed a labor case against Visayan Electric Company. He
was
represented by Atty. Carillo. In December 1996, after they received an
adverse ruling from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
Pilapil
and Atty. Carillo decided to elevate the case to the Supreme Court on
certiorari.
In January 1997, Pilapil made a follow up with Atty. Carillo regarding
his case, and the latter told him that he was already preparing the
petition.
Pilapil, nonetheless, reminded Atty. Carillo of the 60-day period
within
which to file the petition. Atty. Carillo assured him that there was
nothing
to worry about. Pilapil continued to make follow-ups with Atty. Carillo
for one year, but the latter would always give him the same answer.
Atty.
Carillo informed Pilapil to wait as he was still working on the
petition.
Atty. Carillo eventually admitted to Pilapil that when he went to the
Supreme
Court, he was told that the Court would not entertain the petition
unless
they give a valid reason why it was not filed on time. Atty. Carillo
thus
instructed Pilapil to secure a medical certificate from his family
doctor
to be used as justification for the late filing of the petition. When
the
doctor refused to issue a medical certificate, Atty. Carillo advised
Pilapil
to go to a doctor whom he personally knows. But he was still unable to
secure a medical certificate. Hence, Pilapil filed this complaint
against
Atty. Carillo.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 18, 1999, the
Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines ordered
the respondent to submit an answer to the complaint within six (6) days
from notice. A copy of the order was received by respondent’s agent on
April 5, 1999.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 7, 1999, the
Commission on Bar Discipline received a copy of the motion for
extension
of time to submit an answer dated April 14, 1999 filed by respondent.[3]
On May 13, 1999, respondent
having failed to file his answer within the period given, Pilapil filed
a motion to declare respondent in default and to submit the case for
resolution
based on the documents and pleadings submitted.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case was set for
hearing at the IBP on July 21, 2000.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 19, 2000, complainant
filed a motion for the transfer of the venue of the hearing since both
parties reside in Cebu City. In the alternative, complainant prayed
that
the case be resolved based on the pleadings and documents filed.[6]
The IBP required respondent to comment on the motion within ten (10)
days
from notice.[7]
On January 12, 2001,
the Commission on Bar Discipline, granting complainant’s motion for the
transfer of the venue of the hearing, forwarded the records of the case
to the Board of Governors for appropriate action.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records show that
respondent did not file an answer to the complaint as previously
required
by the IBP. Hence, on July 24, 2002, the IBP, through Commissioner
Milagros
V. San Juan, submitted its Report and Recommendation. It recommended
that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. It
made the following observation: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The records of this
case show that respondent has not filed his Answer despite his earlier
motion requesting for time within which to file such Answer. On the
other
hand, the letter-complaint of complainant is straightforward in its
allegation
that respondent, who was complainant’s lawyer in a labor case he filed
against Visayas Electric, failed to file a petition for certiorari of
the
adverse decision rendered in said case. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If the above allegation
of complainant was not true or was inaccurate, it is unbelievable that
respondent would not take steps to dispute the same such as by filing
his
Answer or presenting evidence to disprove the same. That respondent has
not chosen to take any action and has opted to remain silent on the
accusation
of complainant, leads credence to the accusation of complainant.
Respondent’s
inaction to defend his name and his continued practice of his
profession
leads to no other conclusion but that he was indeed negligent in
handling
complainant’s case. Thus it is recommended that for respondent’s
violation
of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent be
suspended from engaging in the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months."[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the observation
and recommendation of the IBP. Respondent’s failure to file an answer
to
the complaint despite notice from the IBP amounts to an admission of
the
allegations therein. Furthermore, respondent’s stubborn refusal to
submit
the required answer despite the lapse of considerable length of time,
as
his failure to file the petition for certiorari relative to
complainant’s
labor case, is clear evidence of negligence on his part. Respondent did
not even offer an explanation for his omission. The Code of
Professional
Responsibility mandates that "every lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence."[10]
It further states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted
to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable."[11]
Thus, we uphold the recommendation of the IBP finding respondent liable
for his negligence in handling complainant’s suit against Visayan
Electric
Company which had been entrusted to him as counsel. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. Let a copy of
this resolution be furnished on the Office of the Bar Confidant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales,
JJ.
, concur. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
Id., pp. 5-6.
[3]
Id., p. 13.
[4]
Id., p. 7.
[5]
Id., p. 23.
[6]
Id., p. 24.
[7]
Id., p. 25.
[8]
Id., p. 29.
[9]
Report and Recommendation submitted by Commissioner Milagros V. San
Juan,
pp. 4-5.
[10]
Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[11]
Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility. |