Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Endaya V Oca
1 Endaya V Oca
*
A.C. No. 3967. September 3, 2003.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
245
TINGA, J.:
_______________
246
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
_______________
4 Id., at p. 26.
5 Ibid.
6 Rollo, p. 27.
7 Id., at p. 7.
8 Id., at p. 10.
247
_______________
9 Id., at p. 11.
10 Id., at p. 15.
11 Id., at pp. 12-22.
12 Id., at p. 15.
13 Id., at p. 19.
14 Id., at p. 20.
15 Id., at p. 21.
16 Id., at p. 22.
248
that respondent
17
received his copy back on September 14,
1992.
Having lost the unlawful detainer case, on January 12,
1993 complainant filed the present administrative
complaint against the respondent for professional
delinquency consisting of his failure to file the required
pleadings in behalf of the complainant and his spouse.
Complainant contends that due to respondent’s inaction he
lost the opportunity
18
to present his cause and ultimately the
case itself. 19
In his Comment dated March 17, 1993, respondent
denies that he committed professional misconduct in
violation of his oath, stressing that he was
20
not the original
counsel of complainant and his spouse. He further avers
that when he agreed to represent complainant at the
continuation of the preliminary conference in the main
case, it was for the sole purpose of asking leave of court to
file an amended answer because he was made to believe by
the complainant that the answer was prepared by a non-
lawyer. Upon discovering that the answer was in fact the
work of a lawyer, forthwith he asked the court to relieve
him as complainant’s counsel, but he was denied. He adds
that he agreed to file the position paper for the
complainant upon the latter’s undertaking to provide him
with the documents which support the position that
plaintiffs are not the owners of the property in dispute. As
complainant had reneged on his promise, he claims that he
deemed it more prudent not to file any position paper as it
would be a repetition of the answer. He offers the same
reason for not filing the memorandum on appeal with the
RTC. Finally, respondent asserts that “he fully explained
his stand as 21regards Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T to the
complainant.”
_______________
17 Id., at p. 3.
18 Ibid.
19 Rollo, pp. 26-28.
20 Id., at p. 26.
21 Id., at pp. 27-28.
249
22
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
22
Pursuant to our Resolution 23
dated May 10, 1993,
complainant filed his Reply to respondent’s Comment
wherein, he merely reiterated his allegations in the
Complaint.
On July 28, 1993, this Court directed respondent to file
his rejoinder
24
within ten days from notice of our
Resolution. But he failed to do so despite the lapse of a
considerable period of time. This prompted the Court to
require respondent to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt and 25
to file his
rejoinder, both within ten26(10) days from notice.
In his Explanation dated February 28, 1997,
respondent admits having received a copy of the resolution
requiring him to file a rejoinder. However, he asserts that
he purposely did not file a rejoinder for “he believed in good
faith that a27 rejoinder to complainant’s reply is no longer
necessary.” He professes that in electing not to file a
rejoinder
28
he did not intend to cast disrespect upon the
Court.
On June 16, 1997, we referred this case to the Office of
the Bar Confidant 29
for evaluation, report and
recommendation. 30
In its Report dated February 6, 2001, the Office of the
Bar Confidant found respondent negligent in handling the
case of complainant and his wife and recommended that he
be suspended from the practice of law for one month. The
pertinent portions of the Report read, thus:
_______________
22 Id., at p. 28.
23 Id., at p. 38.
24 No copy of the Resolution dated July 28, 1993 is found in the Rollo. However,
this Court’s order requiring respondent to file a rejoinder within ten days from
notice is indicated in the minutes of the meeting of the Second Division held on
July 28, 1993.
25 Rollo, p. 44.
26 Id., at p. 46.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Rollo, p. 48.
30 Id., at pp. 49-56.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
250
storm. This is even more made serious of the fact that respondent,
at that time, was assigned at the Public Attorney’s Office—a
government entity mandated to provide free and competent legal
assistance.
“A lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause not only requires but
also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for
the client what is justly due him or to present every defense
provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to succeed.” (Miraflor
vs. Hagad, 244 SCRA 106)
...
The facts, however, do not show that respondent employed
every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his
client. Had respondent tried his best, he could have found some
other defenses available to his client; but respondent was either
too lazy or too convinced that his client had a losing case.
For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by
the court, respondent practically closed the door to the possibility
of putting up a fair fight for his client. As the Court once held, “A
client is bound by the31
negligence of his lawyer.” (Diaz-Duarte vs.
Ong, 298 SCRA 388)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
_______________
251
On October
33
11, 2002, Commissioner Fernandez issued his
Report wherein he concurred with the findings and
recommendation of34 the Office of the Bar Confidant.
In a Resolution dated April 26, 2003, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted the Report of Commissioner Fernandez.
The Court is convinced that respondent violated the
lawyer’s oath not only once but a number of times in regard
to the handling of his clients’ cause. The repeated
violations also involve defilement of several Canons in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Right off, the Court notes that respondent attributes his
failure to file the required pleadings for the complainant
and his wife invariably to his strong personal belief that it
was unnecessary or futile to file the pleadings. This was
true with respect to the affidavits and position paper at the
MCTC level, the appeal memorandum at the RTC level and
the rejoinder at this Court’s level. In the last instance, it
took respondent as long as three years, under compulsion
of a show cause order at that, only to manifest his
predisposition not to file a rejoinder after all. In other
words, at the root of respondent’s transgressions is his
seeming stubborn mindset against the acts required of him
by the courts. This intransigent attitude not only belies
lack of diligence and commitment but evinces absence of
respect for the authority of this Court and the other courts
involved.
The lawyer’s oath embodies the fundamental principles
that guide every member of the legal fraternity. From it
springs the lawyer’s duties and responsibilities that any
infringement thereof can cause
35
his disbarment, suspension
or other disciplinary action.
Found in the oath is the duty of a lawyer to protect and
safeguard the interest of his client. Specifically, it requires
a lawyer to conduct himself “to the best of his knowledge
and discretion36with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to his clients.” This duty is further stressed in Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
that “(A) lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.”
_______________
252
_______________
37 Rollo, p. 53.
38 Id., at pp. 26-27.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
Section 2. Pleading—
A. Pleadings allowed—The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaint
and the answer (to the complaint, counter-claim or cross-claim). If the defendant
has a crossclaim or a compulsory counterclaim, the same must be asserted in the
answer, or be considered barred.
Section 4. Answer.—Upon being served with summons, the defendant must
answer the complaint within ten (10) days from service thereof. The answer to a
counterclaim or crossclaim must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof.
253
42
Also, we held in Santiago v. Fojas, “every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts if for a fee or for free.” In other words, whatever the
lawyer’s reason is for accepting a case, he is duty bound to
do his utmost in prosecuting or defending it.
Moreover, a lawyer continues to be a counsel of record
until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated either by
the act of his client or his own act, with permission of the
court. Until such time, the lawyer
43
is expected to do his best
for the interest of his client.
Thus, when respondent was directed to file affidavits
and position paper by the MCTC, and appeal memorandum
by the RTC, he had no choice but to comply. However,
respondent did not disregard of the court orders. This
constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates that “(A) lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.”
Respondent’s failure to file the affidavits and position
paper at the MCTC did not actually prejudice his clients,
for the court nevertheless rendered a decision favorable to
them. However, the failure is per se a violation of Rule
18.03.
It was respondent’s failure to file appeal which made
complainant and his wife suffer as it resulted in their loss
of the case. As found by the Office of the Bar Confidant, to
which we fully subscribe, in not filing the appeal
memorandum respondent denied complainant and his
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
_______________
254
dum with the RTC. He claims that he did not file the
required pleadings because complainant failed to furnish
him with evidence that would substantiate complainant’s
allegations in the answer. He argues that absent the
supporting documents, the pleadings he could have filed
would just be a repetition of the answer. However,
respondent admits in his comment that complainant
furnished him with the affidavit of persons purporting to be
barangay officials attesting to an alleged admission by
Felomino Hernandez, the brother of the plaintiffs in the
unlawful detainer 44case, that he had already bought the
disputed property. This did not precipitate respondent
into action despite the evidentiary value of the affidavit,
which was executed by disinterested persons. Said affidavit
could have somehow bolstered the claim of complainant
and his wife which was upheld by the MCTC that plaintiffs
are not the real parties-in-interest. While respondent could
have thought this affidavit to be without probative value,
he should have left it to the sound judgment of the court to
determine whether the affidavit supports the assertion of
his clients. That could have happened had he filed the
required position paper and annexed the affidavit thereto.
Further, notwithstanding his belief that without the
supporting documents filing the required pleadings would
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
Canon 12: A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
_______________
44 Rollo, p. 27.
45 Bergonia v. Merrera, A.C. No. 5024, 20 Feb. 2003, 398 SCRA 1.
255
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
_______________
46 Rollo, p. 3.
47 Art. 14.2, Integrated Reorganization Plan, Feb. 1972; Presidential
Decree No. 1725.
48 Supra, note 35 at p. 7.
49 Supra, note 42 at p 74.
50 Ford v. Atty. Daitol, 320 Phil. 53, 59; 250 SCRA 7 (1995).
51 Supra, note 42 at p. 76; Vda. De Oribiana v. Gerio, A.C. No. 1582, 88
SCRA 586, 592, 28 Feb. 1979.
256
52
hundred53 pesos with 54
warning, suspension of three
months,
55
six months, and even disbarment in aggravated
cases.
The facts and circumstances in this case indubitably
show respondent’s failure to live up to his duties as a
lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby
warranting his suspension from the practice of law. At
various stages of the unlawful detainer case, respondent
was remiss in the performance of his duty as counsel.
To reiterate, respondent did not submit the affidavits
and position paper when required by the MCTC. With his
resolution not to file the pleadings already firmed up, he
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
_______________
52 Basas v. Icawat, A.C. No. 4282, 24 Aug. 2000, 338 SCRA 648, 652.
53 Supra, note 50 at p. 59.
54 Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon, 337 Phil. 555, 559;
271 SCRA 109 (1997).
55 Mariveles v. Mallari, A.C. Case No. 3294, 219 SCRA 44, 461, 17 Feb.
1993.
257
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
12/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 410
——o0o——
258
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000167986f57e9d72e5422003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16