Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tejano v. Baterina - A.C. No. 8235
Tejano v. Baterina - A.C. No. 8235
In a letter dated 27 March 2009, then Court Administrator (now Supreme Court Moreover, while he relayed such fact of suspension to his clients, there is no
Associate Justice) Jose P. Perez informed Tejano that the OCA has no jurisdiction over showing that he explained the consequences to them, or that he advised them to seek
Atty. Baterina since it only has administrative supervision over officials and employees another counsel’s assistance in the meantime. Clearly therefore, respondent’s inaction
of the judiciary. However, Tejano was informed to file the complaint against his counsel falls short of the diligence required of him as a lawyer.
at the Office of the Bar Confidant, and that the complaint against Judge Arquelada was
already “being acted upon” by the OCA.14 Second, it must be recalled that the RTC in the said case required the plaintiffs
therein to submit their formal offer of evidence. However, respondent did not bother
In a Resolution dated 6 July 2009, the Court required Atty. Baterina to file a to do so, in total disregard of the RTC’s Order dated 8 November 2004. Respondent’s
Comment on the complaint within 10 days from notice.15 Failing to comply with the bare excuse that he remembers making an oral offer thereof deserves no merit because
Court’s order, Atty. Baterina was ordered to show cause why he should not be the records of this case clearly reveal the contrary. Because of the said inaction of
disciplinarily dealt with and once again ordered to comply with the Court’s 6 July 2009 respondent, his clients’ case was dismissed by the RTC.
Order.16
xxxx
In his Compliance dated 28 March 2010, Atty. Baterina explained that he had been
recuperating from a kidney transplant when he received a copy of the complaint. He From the foregoing, it is clear that respondent’s acts constitute sufficient ground
begged the Court’s indulgence and said that his failure to comply was “not at all for disciplinary action against him. His gross negligence under the circumstances cannot
intended to show disrespect to the orders of the Honorable Tribunal.”17 be countenanced. It is, therefore, respectfully recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, and be fined in the amount of
Atty. Baterina also denied the allegation of bad faith and negligence in handling the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), considering that this is his second disciplinary
Tejano case. He explained that the reason he could not attend to the case was that in action. x x x.22
2002, after the initial presentation of the plaintiffs’ case, he was suspended by the
Court from the practice of law for two years.18 He alleged that this fact was made On 20 March 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the following resolution:
known to Tejano’s mother and sister. However, the trial court did not order plaintiffs
to secure the services of another lawyer. On the contrary, it proceeded to hear the RESOLUTION NO. XX-2013-237
case, and plaintiffs were not represented by a lawyer until the termination of the Adm. Case No. 8235
case.19 Atty. Baterina instead points to the “displayed bias” and “undue and conflict of Joselito F. Tejano vs.
interest”20 of Judge Arquelada as the culprit in Tejano’s predicament. Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina
The Court, in its 19 July 2010 Resolution, found Atty. Baterina’s explanation “not RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
satisfactory” and admonished him “to be more heedful of the Court’s directives in order APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
to avoid delay in the disposition of [the] case.” The Court also referred the case to the Commissioner in the above entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. “A,” and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and
the applicable laws and rules and considering that Respondent is guilty of gross
IBP’s Investigation, Report and Recommendation negligence, Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for two (2) years. However, the Fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos imposed on respondent
After the proceedings, the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline promulgated its is hereby deleted.23
Report and Recommendation,21part of which reads:
The Court’s Ruling
First, it appears that respondent’s failure to appear in representation of his clients
in the said civil case before the RTC was due to his two-year suspension from the The Court adopts the IBP’s report and recommendation, with modification as to the
practice of law in 2001. While this is a justified reason for his nonappearance, penalty.
respondent, however, manifestly failed to properly inform the RTC of this fact. That
LEGAL ETHICS 3
The Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of lawyers states: Considering Atty. Baterina’s medical condition at that time, a simple explanation to
the Court would have sufficed. Instead, however, he simply let the orders go unheeded,
CANON 18 — LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND neglecting his duty to the Court.
DILIGENCE.
xxxx Lawyers, as this Court has previously emphasized, “are particularly called upon to
RULE 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. court directives being themselves officers of the court.”32 As such, Atty. Baterina should
RULE 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and “know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. be complied with promptly and completely.”33
Lawyers have a “fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their Proper Penalty
clients,” and must act “in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.”24 In Spouses Soriano v. Reyes, the Court held that “the appropriate penalty on an
errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he makes a commitment to surrounding facts.”34
exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s services are
engaged, “he is duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his The Court notes that in 2001, Atty. Baterina was also suspended for two years after
client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for being found guilty of gross misconduct.35 In that case, Araceli Sipin-Nabor filed a
a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the complaint against Atty. Baterina for failing to file her Answer with Counterclaim in a
trust and confidence reposed on him.”25 A lawyer’s acceptance to take up a case case for quieting of title and recovery of possession where she and her siblings were
“impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its termination, that is, until the case defendants. Because of such failure, Sipin-Nabor was declared by the trial court to be
becomes final and executory.”26 in default and unable to present her evidence, and which, in turn, resulted in a decision
adverse to her.
Atty. Baterina’s duty to his clients did not automatically cease with his suspension.
At the very least, such suspension gave him a concomitant responsibility to inform his Atty. Baterina was also found to have “convert[ed] the money of his client to his
clients that he would be unable to attend to their case and advise them to retain own personal use without her consent” and “deceiv[ed] the complainant into giving
another counsel. him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used for filing an answer with
counterclaim,” which he never did.
A lawyer — even one suspended from practicing the profession — owes it to his
client to not “sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.”27The The Court likewise noted in that case Atty. Baterina’s “repeated failure to comply
client “should never be left groping in the dark” and instead must be “adequately and with the resolutions of the Court requiring him to comment on the complaint [which]
fully informed about the developments in his case.”28 indicates a high degree of irresponsibility tantamount to willful disobedience to the
lawful orders of the Supreme Court.”36
Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this duty when he allowed the proceedings to
run its course without any effort to safeguard his clients’ welfare in the meantime. His These two disciplinary cases against Atty. Baterina show a pattern of neglecting his
failure to file the required pleadings on his clients’ behalf constitutes gross negligence duty to his clients, as well as a propensity for disrespecting the authority of the courts.
in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility29 and renders him subject to Such incorrigible behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated among the
disciplinary action.30 The penalties for a lawyer’s failure to file the required brief or members of the Bar.
pleading range from warning, reprimand, fine, suspension, or in grave cases,
disbarment.31 For this reason, the Court deems it proper to impose on Atty. Baterina a longer
suspension period of five (5) years.
Further, Atty. Baterina’s reckless disregard for orders and directives of the courts
is unbecoming of a member of the Bar. His conduct has shown that he has little respect WHEREFORE, Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is foundGUILTY of gross negligence.
for rules, court processes, and even for the Court’s disciplinary authority. Not only did He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years. He is also STERNLY
he fail to follow the trial court’s orders in his clients’ case, he even disregarded court WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more
orders in his own disciplinary proceedings. severely.
LEGAL ETHICS 4
This decision shall take effect immediately and copies thereof furnished the Office
of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal record, and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this decision
to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,
Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Sereno, CJ., On Leave.
Brion, J., On Official Leave.
Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina suspended from practice of law for five (5) years for
gross negligence, with stern warning against repetition of similar offense.
Notes.—Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is
expected to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with
diligence, care and devotion. (Voluntad-Ramirez vs. Bautista, 683 SCRA 327 [2012])
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve his client
with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion
regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. ( Lad Vda. de Dominguez vs.
Agleron, Sr., 718 SCRA219 [2014])