EN BANC

[A.C. No. 620 . March 21, 1974.]

JOSE ALCALA and AVELINA IMPERIAL , petitioners, vs. HONESTO DE

VERA , respondent.

DECISION

MUÑOZ PALMA , J : p

On May 19, 1964, Jose Alcala (now deceased) and his wife, Avelina Imperial, led
this present petition for disbarment against respondent Honesto de Vera, a practicing
attorney of Locsin, Albay, who was retained by them as their counsel in civil case 2478
of the Court of First Instance of Albay, entitled: "Ray Semenchuk vs. Jose Alcala".
Complainants charge Atty. Honesto de Vera with gross negligence and
malpractice: 1) for having maliciously and deliberately omitted to notify them of the
decision in civil case 2478 resulting in the deprivation of their right to appeal from the
adverse judgment rendered against them; and 2) for respondent's indifference,
disloyalty and lack of interest in petitioners' cause resulting to their damage and
prejudice.
Respondent attorney, in his answer to these charges, asserted that he notified his
clients of the decision in question and that he defended complainants' case to the best
of his ability as demanded by the circumstances and that he never showed indifference,
lack of interest or disloyalty to their cause.
The Solicitor General, to whom this Court referred this case for investigation,
report and recommendation, substantially found the following:
Civil case 2478 was an action for annulment of a sale of two parcels of land (lots
Nos. 1880 and 1883 covered by TCT Nos. T-12392 and 12393 respectively) led by the
vendee, Ray Semenchuk, against the vendors, spouses Alcala, on the ground that lot
1880 "could not be located or did not exist", and for the recovery of damages and
attorney's fees.
Respondent attorney, whose legal services were engaged by complainants, led
an answer denying the material allegations of the above-mentioned complaint and
setting up a counterclaim for the balance of the purchase price of the lots sold, the
expenses of notarials, internal revenue, registration, etc. plus damages and attorney's
fees.
On April 17, 1963, the trial court rendered judgment rescinding the contract of
sale on the ground that the vendee Semenchuk was not able to take material
possession of lot 1880 it being in the possession of a certain Ruperto Ludovice and his
brothers who have been occupying the land for a number of years. The dispositive
portion of the judgment reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
(a) Declaring the deed of sale (Exhibit A) rescinded;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (b) Directing the plaintiff to deliver to the defendants the possession of Lot
No. 1883;
(c) Ordering the defendants to return to the plaintiff the sum of P1,000.00
after deducting the amount of P250.00 which is the consideration in the deed of
sale of Lot No. 1854; and

(d) Without pronouncement as to costs." (p. 11, rollo)

On April 19, 1963, respondent Atty. de Vera received a copy of the decision but
he failed to inform his clients of the judgment against them. On July 17, 1963, a sheriff
came to complainants' house to serve a writ of execution issued in said case. Totally
caught by surprise, Jose Alcala immediately wrote to the trial court and inquired for the
status of case 2478. The deputy Clerk of Court, in his reply dated July 22, 1963,
informed Alcala that the case was decided on April 17, 1963, that a copy of the
decision was received by respondent attorney on April 19, 1963, and that since no
appeal was taken, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court on motion of the
plaintiff Semenchuk.
On September 12, 1963, spouses Alcala instituted civil case 2723 for damages
against Atty. Honesto de Vera for having failed to inform them of the decision in case
2478 as a result of which they lost their right to appeal from said decision. The trial
court that heard case 2723 found for a fact that respondent did not inform his clients
of the decision rendered in case 2478; however, it denied damages for lack of proof
that the spouses Alcala suffered any damage as a result of respondent's failure to
notify them of the aforesaid decision. The judgment in case 2723 was appealed to the
Court of Appeals 1 by respondent herein but the same was a rmed by said appellate
court.
Not content with having led case 2723, complainants instituted this complaint
for disbarment against their former counsel.
1. "Indifference, loyalty, and lack of interest" of respondent in the handling of
complainants' defense in civil case 2478.
The basis of this particular charge is the alleged failure of Atty. de Vera to
present at the trial of case 2478 certain documents which according to the
complainants could have proven that lot 1880 actually existed, to wit: a sketch of lot
1880 prepared by the vendee, Semenchuk, himself (Exh. L Adm. Case); technical
description of lot 1880 taken from complainants' certi cate of title (Exh. M-Adm.
Case); sketch plan of lot 1880 in relation to the adjoining lots prepared by surveyor
Miguel N. Romero (Exh. N-Adm. Case); a receipt for P10.00 issued by surveyor Romero
for the preparation of the sketch, Exh. N (Exh. O-Adm. Case) - all of which documents
were turned over by Jose Alcala to respondent before the trial of case 2478.
We agree with the Solicitor General that there is no merit to this particular
charge.
The records of case 2478 show that upon agreement of the parties and their
attorneys, the trial court appointed a commissioner to relocate lot 1880 and after
conducting such relocation, the commissioner reported to the Court that the lot
existed, but that the same was in the possession of other persons. Inasmuch as the
existence of lot 1880 had already been veri ed by the commissioner, it was therefore
unnecessary for respondent attorney to introduce in evidence Exhibits "L", "M", "N", and
"O", the purpose of which was merely to prove the existence of said lot. If the complaint
for rescission prospered it was because of complainant Alcala's failure to comply with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 his obligation of transferring the material or physical possession of lot 1880 to the
vendee and for no other reason; hence, complainants had nobody to blame but
themselves. The fact that the plaintiff, Semenchuk, was not awarded any damages,
attorney's fees, and costs shows that respondent attorney exerted his utmost to resist
plaintiff's complaint.
2. Gross negligence and malpractice committed by respondent for failure to
inform his clients of the decision in civil case 2478: —
The matter in dispute with respect to this speci c charge is whether or not
respondent noti ed his clients, the complainants herein, about the decision in case
2478. Respondent claims that he did inform his clients of the decision; complainants
insist the contrary.
We agree with the Solicitor General that there is su cient evidence on hand to
prove that respondent neglected to acquaint his clients of the decision in case 2478.
As stated in the Solicitor General's report, the reaction of complainant Jose
Alcala when the writ of execution in said civil case was served upon him and his wife by
a sheriff was such that it betrayed a total unawareness of the adverse decision. The
evidence shows that when he was told about the sheriff's visit, Jose Alcala immediately
inquired from the trial Court the reason for the writ of execution and it was only then
that he was informed that a decision had been rendered, that his lawyer received a copy
thereof since April 19, 1963, and because no appeal was taken the judgment became
nal and executory. Alcala then sought the help of his brother, Atty. Ernesto Alcala, in
Manila and the latter wrote to respondent inquiring as to what steps were taken, if any,
to prosecute an appeal from the decision in question but respondent chose not to
answer the letter. Thereafter, Alcala instituted an action for damages and led the
instant complaint for disbarment.
As aptly observed by the Solicitor General:
Again, we do not think petitioner Alcala would have felt so aggrieved and
embittered by the loss of his right to appeal the decision in Civil Case No. 2478 so
as to take all these legal steps against respondent, with all the attendant trouble
and expense in doing so, if it is not true, as he alleged, that the latter indeed did
not notify him of said decision. We believe and so submit, therefore, that
respondent really failed to inform petitioners of the decision in Civil Case No.
2478, and this was also the nding made by the Court of First Instance of Albay
in its decision in Civil Case No. 2723 for damages led by petitioners against
respondent, and by the Court of Appeals in the appeal taken by respondent from
said decision." (pp 38-39, rollo)

Is respondent's failure to notify his clients of the decision su cient cause for his
disbarment? Complainants answer the question in the a rmative, while on the other
hand, respondent prays that he be exonerated because, according to him, granting
arguendo that he failed to inform the complainants about the decision, the truth is that
said decision was fair and just and no damage was caused to complainants by reason
thereof.
On this point, We agree with the following appraisal of the evidence by the
Solicitor General:
In this connection, it is indeed true that although both the Court of
First Instance of Albay, in Civil Case No. 2723 for damages led by
petitioners against respondent Atty. De Vera (pp. 30-34, Exh. 'D', id.), and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Court of Appeals, in C.A.-G.R. No. 35267-R (the appeal taken by respondent
from the decision of the trial court in C.C. No. 2723), found that respondent
actually did not inform petitioners of the decision in Civil Case No. 2478, still
both courts also held that petitioners did not sustain any damages as a
result of said decision, for which reason the trial court dismissed petitioners'
action for damages against respondent, which dismissal was a rmed by
the Court of Appeals. We quote the nding of the Court of First Instance of
Albay in its decision in Civil Case No. 2723 in this regard:
'The second issue that has to be passed upon by the Court is
whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages. On this issue, the
Court nds that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages from
defendant Atty. Honesto de Vera. No evidence has been presented
that they sustained damages of the decision. Neither it has been
shown that the decision is not supported by the facts and the law
applicable to the case. Consequently, the plaintiffs are not entitled
to damages because of the failure of Atty. Honesto de Vera to
inform them of the decision.
An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and skill,
having reference to the character of the business he
undertakes to do. Fallible like any other human being, he is
answerable to every error or mistake, and will be protected
as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the best of
his skill and knowledge. Moreover, a party seeking damages
resulting from a judgment adverse to him which became
nal by reason of the alleged fault or negligence of his
lawyer must prove his loss due to the injustice of the
decision. He cannot base his action on the unsubstantiated
and arbitrary supposition of the injustice of the decision.
(Tuzon vs. Donato, 58 O.G. 6480).'
(Exh. 'D', id.; pp. 33-34)
Signi cantly, petitioners did not appeal from the above decision, which is an
implied acceptance by them of the correctness of the ndings therein.
Instead, it was respondent Atty. De Vera who appealed said decision to the
Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. No. 35267-R), and the latter Court, although
agreeing with the nding of the trial court that respondent really did not
inform petitioners of the decision in Civil Case No. 2478 (Exh. 'T') a rmed,
however, the lower court's nding that petitioners were not entitled to the
damages claimed by them by reason of respondent's failure to notify them
of the decision in Civil Case No. 2478. . . . While the rule of res judicata in
civil or criminal cases is not, strictly speaking, applicable in disbarment
proceedings, which is neither a civil or a criminal proceeding intended to
punish a lawyer or afford redress to private grievances but is a proceeding
sui generis intended to safeguard the administration of justice by removing
from the legal profession a person who has proved himself un t to exercise
such trust (p. 207, Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics; Re Keenan, 86 ALR 679;
De Jesus-Paras vs. Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439, April 12, 1961; In re
Montague & Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577, 588), still we consider the ndings of
the trial court as well as of the Court of Appeals in the damage suit led by
petitioners against respondent Atty. De Vera based on the same grounds
now invoked in this disbarment case relevant and highly persuasive in this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 case, especially as petitioners themselves have, as already observed,
accepted and admitted the correctness of said ndings. And we may add
that we ourselves agree with respondent that petitioners had not been
prejudiced or damaged in any way by the decision in Civil Case No. 2478,
but that said decision appears in fact to be more favorable to them than
could have been the case if the trial court had applied the law strictly against
them in said case . . . ." (pp. 17-19, Report. pp. 39-41, rollo; emphasis
supplied)

The Solicitor General's Report continues and says:

"True it is that petitioners do not appear to have suffered any material or
pecuniary damage by the failure of respondent Atty. De Vera to notify them of the
decision in Civil Case No. 2478. t is no less true, however, that in failing to inform
his clients, the petitioners, of the decision in said civil case respondent failed to
exercise 'such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly
possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment' (7 C.J.S. 979).
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of con dence, there is ever present the
need for the client's being adequately and fully informed and should not be left in
the dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are being defended. It
is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired (Oparel, Sr. vs.
Aheria, Adm. Case No. 595, July 30, 1971). As it happened in this case, because
of respondent's failure to notify petitioners of the decision in Civil Case No. 2478,
the latter were entirely caught by surprise, resulting in shock and mental and
emotional disturbance to them, when the sheriff suddenly showed up in their
home with a writ of execution of a judgment that they never knew had been
rendered in the case, since their lawyer, the respondent, had totally failed to
inform them about the same. . . ." (pp. 23-24, Report, pp. 45-46, rollo; emphasis
supplied)

We concur with the above-quoted observations and add that the correctness of
the decision in case 2478 is no ground for exonerating respondent of the charge but at
most will serve only to mitigate his liability. While there is no nding of malice, deceit, or
deliberate intent to cause damage to his clients, there is, nonetheless, proof of
negligence, inattention, and carelessness on the part of respondent in his failure to give
timely notice of the decision in question. Fortunately for respondent, his negligence did
not result in any material or pecuniary damage to the herein complainants and for this
reason We are not disposed to impose upon him what may be considered in a lawyer's
career as the extreme penalty of disbarment. As stated in the very early case of In Re
Macdougall:
"The disbarment of an attorney is not intended as a punishment, but is
rather intended to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who
exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable, and reliable: men
in whom courts and clients may repose con dence. This purpose should be borne
in mind in the exercise of disbarment, and the power should be exercised with that
caution which the serious consequences of the action involves.
"The profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study. It
is a lifetime profession. By years of patience, zeal, and ability, the attorney may
have acquired a fixed means of support for himself and family, of great pecuniary
value, and the deprivation of which would result in irreparable injury." (3 Phil. 70,
77-78)

In the words of former Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Court:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "On one hand, the profession of an attorney is of great importance to an
individual and the prosperity of his whole life may depend on its exercise. The
right to exercise it ought not to be lightly or capriciously taken from him. On the
other, it is extremely desirable that the respectability of the bar should be
maintained and that its harmony with the bench should be preserved. For these
objects, some controlling power, some discretion, ought to reside in the Court.
This discretion ought to be exercised with great moderation and judgment: but it
must be exercised. (Ex parte Burr. 9 Wheat 529: Martin, Legal & Judicial Ethics
1972 Ed. p. 213.)

Although respondent's negligence does not warrant disbarment or suspension

under the circumstances of the case, nonetheless it cannot escape a rebuke from Us as
we hereby rebuke and censure him, considering that his failure to notify his clients of
the decision in question manifests a lack of total dedication or devotion to their interest
expected of him under his lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Respondent's inaction merits a severe censure from the Court.
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the evidence, the report and recommendation of the
Solicitor General, and the fact that this appears to be the rst misconduct of
respondent in the exercise of his legal profession, We hereby hold said respondent
GUILTY only of simple negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer of
complainants, and We hereby SEVERELY CENSURE him. Let this decision be noted in
respondent's record — as a member of the Bar — in this Court.
So Ordered.
Makalintal, C .J ., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar,
Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. C.A. G.R No. 35267-R.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com