2 - Edquibal V Ferrer

THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5687. February 3, 2005.]

FELIX E. EDQUIBAL, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER,
JR., respondent.
RESOLUTION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J :
p
In a letter-complaint 1 under oath dated January 8, 2002, Felix E. Edquibal,

complainant, charged Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr., respondent, with professional
misconduct and neglect of duty.
Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of respondent to assist his
mother Ursula Edquibal in cases she led against his sister Delia Edquibal-Garcia
involving a certain real property in Masinloc, Zambales. His mother obtained
favorable judgments in four (4) out of the ve (5) cases handled by respondent.
However, in Civil Case No. RTC-1495-I (led with the Regional Trial Court, Branch
70, Iba, Zambales), the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother.
Respondent then advised complainant to appeal to the Court of Appeals and that
the cost involved is P4,000.00. When complainant informed respondent that he
does not have enough money, the latter said P2,000.00 would be sucient for the
moment. After receiving the money from complainant, respondent told him just to
wait for the result. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 65019.
When complainant failed to hear from respondent in January 2001, he went to the
Court of Appeals to follow-up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal
was dismissed for failure of the appellant to file the required appellant's brief.
In his comment 2 dated June 2, 2003, respondent denied that he led an appeal, on
behalf of complainant's mother, with the Court of Appeals or received P2,000.00.
What happened was that complainant told him that there is someone in the Court
of Appeals who can help him regarding his appeal. Respondent claimed that he "did
his best" for complainant's mother and did not even ask for attorney's fees.
HDICSa
On July 30, 2003, we referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In his Report and Recommendation dated March 19, 2004, Atty. Leland R. Villadolid,
IBP Commissioner, made the following findings:
"It is clear from the records of this case that per the records of CA-G.R. CV
No. 65019, Respondent is the counsel of record of defendants-appellants
therein (including Complainant's mother). In the Resolution dated 31 August
2000, it was explicitly noted that '(N)otice sent to counsel for defendantsappellants requiring him to le appellant's brief within forty-ve (45) days
from receipt thereof was received by him on March 16, 2000.' If it is true
that Respondent never agreed to handle the appeal, upon receipt of said
notice, Respondent should have immediately manifested to the Court of
Appeals that he is not handling the appeal on behalf of said defendantsappellants. Thus, Section 2, Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly
states that '[T]he counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court
of origin shall be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad
litem in the Court of Appeals.' By failing to do so, the Court of Appeals had
every reason to assume that he was likewise representing defendantsappellants in the appeal. Accordingly, his failure to timely le the required
appellants' brief resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
The facts of this case clearly show that Respondent violated Canon 17 and
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ('CPR').
Undoubtedly, Respondent's failure to exercise due diligence in protecting
and attending to the interest of Complainant (Complainant's mother) caused
the latter material prejudice. It should be remembered that the moment a
lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exert all eort for its
prosecution until its nal conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise due
diligence or abandons his client's cause makes him unworthy of the trust
reposed in him by the latter. . . ."
Atty. Villadolid recommended to the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be

reprimanded "for failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing the cause
of complainant;" and that respondent be directed to "return the amount of
P2,000.00 as and by way of restitution to complainant."
In its Resolution No. XVI-2004-383 dated July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Atty. Villadolid, thus:
"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 the Resolution
as Annex "A"; and, nding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering the
respondent's failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing the
cause of complainant, Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr., is hereby REPRIMANDED and
Ordered to Return the amount of P2,000.00 by way of Restitution to
complainant." 3
We sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the penalty
recommended.
Records show that respondent was the counsel of record for the appellants,
complainant's mother and other relatives in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019. The Resolution
of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2000 clearly states that the "notice sent to
counsel for defendants-appellants requiring him to le appellant's brief within forty-
ve (45) days from receipt thereof, was received by him on March 16, 2000. " 4
However, respondent failed to le the appellants' brief despite receipt of such
notice.
Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
SEC. 2.
Counsel and guardians . The counsel and guardians ad litem of
the parties in the court of origin shall be respectively considered as their
counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals . When others appear
or are appointed, notice thereof shall be served immediately on the adverse
party and filed with the court.
If it were true that respondent did not agree to represent the appellants in CA-G.R.
CV No. 65019, why did he not le with the Court of Appeals a motion to withdraw
as their counsel? Obviously, his negligence, which resulted in the dismissal of the
appeal, caused prejudice to his clients. Likewise, respondent's failure to inform
complainant of the status of his mother's appeal is inexcusable.
It bears stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and condence.
Thus, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the
developments in his case. 5 A client should never be left groping in the dark, for to
do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and condence reposed in the lawyer so
retained in particular and the legal profession in general.
Respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provide:
"Canon 17 A lawyer owes delity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to his client's request for
information."
DTAHEC
Diligence is "the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is
the opposite of negligence." 6 A lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting
that norm of practice expected of men of good intentions. He thus owes entire
devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the defense and maintenance of
his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill, and ability to ensure that
nothing shall be taken or withheld from him, save by the rules of law legally
applied. 7 It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success is eternal
diligence to the cause of the client.
The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia)
or that "extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence
and circumspection use for securing and preserving their rights." 8 All that is
required is ordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a
bonus pater familias. Yet, even by this lesser standard, respondent's failure to
attend to his client's appeal is clearly wanting.
I n People v. Cawili , 9 we held that the failure of counsel to submit the brief within
the reglementary period is an oense that entails disciplinary action. People v.
Villar, Jr. 10 characterized a lawyer's failure to le a brief for his client as inexcusable
neglect. In Blaza v. Court of Appeals, 11 we held that the ling of a brief within the
period set by law is a duty not only to the client, but also to the court. Perla
Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilaban 12 reiterated Ford v. Daitol 13 an d In re:
Santiago F. Marcos 14 in holding that an attorney's failure to le brief for his client
constitutes inexcusable negligence.
In cases involving a lawyer's failure to le a brief or other pleading before an
appellate court, we did not hesitate to suspend the erring member of the Bar from
the practice of law for three months, 15 six months, 16 or even disbarment in
severely aggravated cases. 17
Accordingly and considering the circumstances of this case, we nd a need to scale
the recommended penalty upward. Here, we are convinced that respondent
deserves the penalty of suspension for three (3) months.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER, JR. is hereby found guilty of professional
misconduct and neglect of duty. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three
(3) months with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar oense shall
be dealt with more severely. He is further DIRECTED to return immediately to the
complainant the amount of P2,000.00.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Condant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Corona, Carpio Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.
Id. at 57-59.
3.
Id. at 71.
4.
See supra note 4.
5.
Alcala v. De Vera, A.C. No. 620, March 21, 1974, 56 SCRA 30.
6.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (6th Ed. 1991) 457.
7.
In re Tionko, 43 Phil. 191 (1922) citing In re Filart, 40 Phil. 205 (1919).
8.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, supra.
9.
G.R. No. 30543, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 728.
10.
G.R. No. 34092, July 29, 1972, 46 SCRA 107.
11.
G.R. No. 31630, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 461.
12.
A.C. No. 3907, April 10, 1997, 271 SCRA 109.
13.
A.C. No. 3736, November 16, 1995, 250 SCRA 7.
14.
A.C. No. 922, December 29, 1987, 156 SCRA 844.
15.
See for instance, Ford v. Daitol, supra and In re: Santiago F. Marcos, supra.
16.
See Guiang v. Antonio, A.C. No. 2473, February 3, 1993, 218 SCRA 381.
17.
See Mariveles v. Mallari, A.C. No. 3294, February 17, 1993, 219 SCRA 44.

2 - Edquibal V Ferrer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Edquibal V Ferrer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5687. February 3, 2005.]

In a letter-complaint 1 under oath dated January 8, 2002, Felix E. Edquibal,

Atty. Villadolid recommended to the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be

Panganiban, Corona, Carpio Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Rollo, pp. 1-2.

See supra note 4.

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (6th Ed. 1991) 457.

In re Tionko, 43 Phil. 191 (1922) citing In re Filart, 40 Phil. 205 (1919).

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, supra.

G.R. No. 30543, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 728.

G.R. No. 34092, July 29, 1972, 46 SCRA 107.

G.R. No. 31630, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 461.

A.C. No. 3907, April 10, 1997, 271 SCRA 109.

A.C. No. 3736, November 16, 1995, 250 SCRA 7.

A.C. No. 922, December 29, 1987, 156 SCRA 844.

You might also like