ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 6072.
PINOTE vs. BENSI
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.C. No. 6072(Wenceslao B. Pinote vs. Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi.)
Complainant Wenceslao B, Pinote and his wife, Anacleta, were then residing in Manila when they engaged the services of respondent, Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi, in 1991 to file a complaint in Baybay, Leyte for Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale against Anacleta's brother, Andres Cuarenta. On September 1991, the complainant and his wife received a letter from Atty. Bensi asking them for P1,000 as filing fees for the complaint. They sent Atty. Bensi the money and the latter, in turn, reported that he already filed the said complaint with Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baybay, Leyte. Atty. Bensi likewise sent them a copy of the complaint, which was docketed as Civil Case No. B-1173. In 1995, the couple visited Leyte and asked Atty. Bensi about the case. They were told that the hearing on the said case has not started since a judge has yet to be assigned in Baybay, Leyte. The couple returned to Manila relying on these words. In 2000, complainant Pinote retired from his job in Manila and, together with his entire family, relocated to Baybay, Leyte. It was then that he discovered that Atty. Bensi no longer lived there and when he personally went to Branch 4 of the RTC of Baybay to inquire about the status of Civil Case No. B-1173, he found out that although the said complaint was indeed filed with the court, no action was taken since the filing fees were not fully paid. Complainant and his wife also found out that Andres Cuarenta succeeded in selling the property allegedly owned in part by complainant's wife.
Hence, on
In a letter dated
In a report dated
On
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/ Decision as Annex "A"; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and , rules, and, considering respondent's failure to comply with the duty imposed under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Bensi is hereby REPRIMANDED and further WARNED that a similar action in the future will be dealt with more severely.
We agree. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
A lawyer owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he must serve the client with competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. [1] cralaw
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi is hereby REPRIMANDED with a warning that any similar action in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Ramos v. Jacoba, Adm. Case No. 5505, September 27, 2001 citing Santiago v. Fojas, 248 scra 68, 73-74 (1995).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH