FIRST DIVISION
JOSEFINA
B.
FAJARDO,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
6295
April 14, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
DANILO DELA
TORRE,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Complainant was the defendant
in Civil Case No. 581 for forcible entry, entitled, "Felisa Imperial
versus
Josefina Fajardo", and the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 582 for Unlawful
Detainer, entitled, "Josefina B. Fajardo versus Felisa Imperial." The
cases
were consolidated and tried jointly by the Municipal Trial Court of
Ba-ao,
Camarines Sur, which rendered judgment in favor of Imperial.[1]
Complainant’s counsel, respondent herein, appealed to the Regional
Trial
Court of Iriga City, which affirmed the appealed decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, complainant instructed
respondent to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
Respondent
demanded the amount of P4,300.00[2]
for the preparation and filing of the petition which complainant
complied
by remitting the amount to respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears that the
petition for review was later dismissed by the Court of Appeals on the
grounds of insufficient payment of docket fees and failure to attach
the
certified true copy of the assailed decision. Complainant only learned
of the resolution dismissing her petition when her opponent, Imperial,
filed a motion for new trial attaching a copy thereof in the separate
action
filed by complainant with the RTC of Iriga City for recovery of
possession.cralaw:red
Complainant thus filed
a complaint charging respondent of "Gross Ignorance of the Law and
Negligence
in the Performance of Profession."[3]
The Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline directed respondent to
answer
the complaint. Despite receipt of the Order of the IBP-CBD, respondent
failed to answer the Complaint.cralaw:red
Subsequently, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Notice dated February 13, 2001[4]
setting the case for hearing on March 13, 2001. Again, despite receipt
by respondent of the notice, he failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing.
Complainant was allowed to present her evidence ex parte.cralaw:red
On September 22, 2003,
the IBP-CBD submitted its Report finding respondent liable as charged
and
recommending that he be fined P1,500.00 and suspended from the practice
of law for a period ranging from four (4) to six (6) months. The IBP
Board
of Governors adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but
reduced the suspension to one (1) month.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While we agree with
the finding that respondent is liable for negligence, we find
inadequate
the recommended period of suspension. Hence, we impose on respondent
the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year.cralaw:red
In Ingles v. Dela Serna,[5]
it was held:
Complaints against lawyers
for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the outset,
the Court finds the complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it
outrightly
dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that
further
inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved
by
merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, referral is made to the IBP
for formal investigation of the case during which the parties are
accorded
an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be
conducted
when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. Hereunder
are
some of the pertinent provisions of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on
this matter, viz:
x x
x
x x x x x x.cralaw:red
SEC. 8. Investigation.
– Upon joinder of the issues or upon failure of respondent to answer,
the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the
investigation
of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer
oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
himself,
to present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by himself and counsel.
However, if, upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear,
the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.cralaw:red
The Investigator shall
terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of
its
commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors,
upon prior application.cralaw:red
Willful failure or refusal
to obey a subpoena or any other order issued by the Investigator shall
be dealt with as for indirect contempt of Court. The corresponding
charge
shall be filed by the Investigator with the before the IBP Board of
Governors
which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10)
days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct
hearings,
if necessary in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule
for
hearings set before the Investigator. Such hearing shall, as far as
practicable,
be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement.
Thereafter,
the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15)
days
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations,
which
shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action
and
if warranted, the imposition of the penalty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The procedure outlined
by the Rules are meant to ensure that the innocents are spared from
wrongful
condemnation and that only the guilty are meted their just due.
Obviously,
these requirements are not to be taken lightly. (Emphasis and italics
supplied).cralaw:red
The records show that
from the time respondent was directed to file his answer up to the time
the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting the
recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner, nothing was heard from respondent
despite
due notice. Hence, he is deemed to have waived the opportunity to
present
witnesses on his behalf or to be heard by himself and counsel.cralaw:red
The records show that
respondent asked for the amount of P4,300.00 for the preparation of the
petition for review to be filed with the Court of Appeals, which amount
was itemized as follows:
Postage -
P
350.00
(bulky-21
copies
plus annexes)
Xerox copies -
750.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(@ 500 pages)
(clear copy)
Miscellaneous -
200.00
Legal fees - P
3,000.00
--------------------------------------------------
P4,300.00[6]
However, the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition reads:
Before Us is a Petition
for Review filed on January 27, 2000. From the records, it appears that
the said petition is not sufficient in form. For one, the payment of
the
docketing fees remitted by the petitioner was for only P650.00, which
is
short by P280.00. Likewise, the attached copy of the questioned RTC
Decision
dated December 15, 1999 is merely a plain photocopy, in violation of
Sec.
2(d) of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, for violation
of Sec. 1 and Sec. 2(d) in relation to Sec. 3 of Rule 42 of the 1997
Rules
of Court, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis
and italics supplied).[7]
Respondent was not only
remiss in the preparation of the petition, but may have misappropriated
a portion of the sum remitted to him by complainant for the purpose of
filing the petition because the docketing fees he remitted was short of
P280.00. What is worse is that respondent failed to inform complainant
of the actual status of the appeal. Such behavior cannot and should not
be countenanced because they run afoul with the following provisions of
the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 15. – A lawyer
shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions
with his clients.cralaw:red
CANON 16. – A lawyer
shall hold in trust all moneys and property collected or received for
or
from the client.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 16.01. – A lawyer
shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from
the client.cralaw:red
Rule 16.02. – A lawyer
shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and
those of others kept by him.cralaw:red
Rule 16.03. – A lawyer
shall deliver the funds and the property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so
much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements,
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have
lien
to same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his
client
as provided for in the Rules of Court.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x x x x x
CANON 17. – A lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence in him.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x x x x x
Rule 18.04. – 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.cralaw:red
It appears that complainant
learned about the dismissal of her petition only through the copy of
the
appellate court’s resolution appended to an omnibus motion for new
trial
and reconsideration[8]
in another case, i.e., Civil Case No. 588 for Recovery of Ownership and
Possession. In Garcia v. Manuel,[9]
it was held:
The relationship of
lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need
for
the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of
the
case and should not be left in the dark as to mode and manner in which
his interests are being defended. It is only thus that the trust and
faith
in the counsel may remain unimpaired. (Emphasis and italics supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, it was
held in Rabanal v. Tugade[10]
that an attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best
of his ability and with utmost diligence. Implicit with this directive
is the command that all lawyers are duty-bound to keep abreast of the
law
and legal developments as well as to participate in continuing legal
education
programs.[11]
All law practitioners should be fully conversant of the requirements
for
the filing of certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.[12]
Ignorantia legis non excusat.[13]
Ignorance encompasses not only substantive but also procedural laws.[14]
Moreover, Rule 18.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection
therewith shall render him liable. Verily:
Once he agrees to take
up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must
serve
the client with competence and diligence and champion the latter’s
cause
with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance
and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost
learning
and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his
client,
save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his
client
is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to
assert
every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it
is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the
correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the
bar and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence
and
candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the
ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect
of
the community to the legal profession.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records further
show that a similar complaint[16]
for malpractice and unethical behavior has been filed against
respondent
by complainant’s son with the IBP for the dismissal of Special
Proceedings
No. 1471 as a result of respondent’s gross negligence. The foregoing
only
serves to aggravate and to underscore respondent’s malfeasance.cralaw:red
The misconduct of respondent
is not, however, limited to his professional duties towards his clients.cralaw:red
Respondent’s consistent
refusal to comply with lawful orders during the proceedings before the
Commission on Bar Discipline without any explanation, despite receipt
of
notice, borders on the willful and is not lost on the Court. In Grande
v. De Silva,[17]
the Court held:
Needless to state, respondent’s
persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her with
not
even an explanation for doing so is contumacious conduct which merits
no
compassion. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession at all times. She can only do this by
faithfully
performing her duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to her
clients. We can not tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the
fair name of an honorable profession.cralaw:red
All told, respondent
has failed to do his duty to his client and has clearly violated the
Code
of Professional Responsibility. His actions erode the public’s
perception
of the legal profession.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As consistently held
by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out where a lesser penalty
could accomplish the end desired.[18]
However, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1)
month imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is not proportionate to
respondent’s
violation of several Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Thus, he deserves a graver penalty,
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, respondent Atty. DANILO DELA TORRE is hereby
SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.cralaw:red
This resolution shall
take effect immediately. Copies hereof shall be furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal record; the
Office of the President; the Department of Justice; the Court of
Appeals;
the Sandiganbayan and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court
Administrator shall also furnish all lower courts with copies of this
Resolution.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban, Carpio and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 6-15.
[2]
Id., p. 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., pp. 1-4.
[4]
Id., p. 58.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
A.C. No. 5763, 3 December 2002, 393 SCRA 252.
[6]
Rollo, p. 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 53-55.
[8]
Id., pp. 46-61.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
A.C. No. 5811, 20 January 2003.
[10]
A.C. No. 1372, 27 June 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 142689, 17 October 2002, 391
SCRA 192, citing Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[12]
Lapid v. Laurea, G.R. No. 139607, 28 October 2002, 391 SCRA 277.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Intengan v. CA, G.R. No. 128996, 15 February 2002, 377 SCRA 63.
[14]
Lapid v. Laurea, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Ramos v. Jacoba, A.M. No. 5505, 27 September 2001.
[16]
Rollo, pp. 20-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
A.C. No. 4838, 29 July 2003.
[18]
Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, 6 March 2003, 398 SCRA 658, citing
Saburnido v. Madronio, A.C. No. 4497, 26 September 2001, 366 SCRA 1;
T’boli
Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. (TADI) v. Solilapsi, A.C. No. 4766,
27
December 2002, 394 SCRA 269, citing Paras v. Paras, 343 SCRA 414 [2000]. |