Republic of the Philippines Respondent failed to submit the required affidavits

Supreme Court and position paper, as may be gleaned from

Manila the Decision dated March 19, 1992 of the MCTC where it
was noted that “only the plaintiffs submitted their
Second Division affidavits and position papers.”[8]

Administrative Case No. 3967 Nonetheless, the court dismissed the complaint for
September 3, 2003 unlawful detainer principally on the ground that the
plaintiffs are not the real parties-in-interest.  The
ARTEMIO ENDAYA, Complainant dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
- versus-
ATTY. WILFREDO OCA, Respondent WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed on the
ground that the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue as
they are not the real party (sic) in interest, in addition to
DECISION the fact that there is no privity of contract between the
TINGA, J.: plaintiffs and the defendants as to the verbal lease
agreement.
The law is no brooding omnipresence in the sky, so
spoke Justice Holmes. He must have made the statement SO ORDERED.[9]
because invariably the legal system is encountered in
human form, notably through the lawyers.  For practical Plaintiffs appealed the Decision to the Regional Trial
purposes, the lawyers not only represent the law; they are Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 1, where the case
the law.[1] With their ubiquitous presence in the social was docketed as Civil Case No. 3378.  On April 10, 1992,
milieu, lawyers have to be responsible. The problems they the RTC directed the parties to file their respective
create in lawyering become public difficulties. To keep memoranda.[10] Once again, respondent failed the
lawyers responsible underlies the worth of the ethics of complainant and his wife. As observed by the RTC in
lawyering. Indeed, legal ethics is simply the aesthetic term its Decision[11] dated September 7, 1992, respondent did
for professional responsibility. not file the memorandum for his clients, thereby
prompting the court to consider the case as submitted for
The case before us demonstrates once again that decision.[12]
when a lawyer violates his duties to his client, the courts,
the legal profession and the public, he engages in conduct In its Decision, the RTC reversed the decision
which is both unethical and unprofessional. appealed from as it held that plaintiffs are the co-owners of
the property in dispute and as such are parties-in-interest.
This case unfolded with a verified Complaint[2] filed on [13]
 It also found that the verbal lease agreement was on a
January 12, 1993 by complainant Artemio Endaya against month-to-month basis and perforce terminable by the
respondent Atty. Wifredo Oca for violation of the lawyer’s plaintiffs at the end of any given month upon proper notice
oath and what complainant termed as “professional to the defendants.[14] It also made a finding that defendants
delinquency or infidelity.”[3] The antecedents are: incurred rentals in arrears. [15] The decretal portion of
the Decision reads, thus:
On November 7, 1991, a complaint for unlawful
detainer docketed as Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T was filed WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of
with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo dated
Batangas by Apolonia H. Hornilla, Pedro Hernandez, March 19, 1992, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and new one
Santiago Hernandez and Dominador Hernandez against entered, to wit:
complainant and his spouse Patrosenia Endaya.[4]
Defendants ARTEMIO ENDAYA and PATROSENIA
On December 13, 1991, the complainant and his wife ENDAYA and all persons claiming under them are hereby
as defendants in the case filed their answer which was ordered to vacate and dismantle their house on the land
prepared by a certain Mr. Isaias Ramirez. A preliminary subject of the verbal lease agreement at their own expense.
conference was conducted on January 17, 1992, which The defendants are likewise ordered to pay the monthly
complainant and his wife attended without counsel. During rental of P25.00 from the month of January 1991 to
the conference, complainant categorically admitted that November 1991 and ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS
plaintiffs were the declared owners for taxation purposes monthly from December 1991 until the defendants finally
of the land involved in the case. Continuation of the vacate and surrender possession of the subject property to
preliminary conference was set on January 31, 1992. the plaintiffs and to pay attorney’s fee in the amount of
Thereafter, complainant sought the services of the Public TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS.
Attorney’s Office in Batangas City and respondent was No pronouncement as to cost.[16]
assigned to handle the case for the complainant and his
wife.[5] Complainant received a copy of the Decision on
October 7, 1992.  Two days later, or on October 9, 1992,
At the continuation of the preliminary conference, complainant confronted respondent with the adverse
respondent appeared as counsel for complainant and his decision but the latter denied receipt of a copy
spouse.  He moved for the amendment of the answer thereof.  Upon inquiry with the Branch Clerk of Court,
previously filed by complainant and his wife, but his however, complainant found out that respondent received
motion was denied.[6] Thereafter, the court, presided by his copy back on  September 14, 1992.[17]
Acting Trial Court Judge Teodoro M. Baral, ordered the
parties to submit their affidavits and position papers Having lost the unlawful detainer case, on January 12,
within ten days from receipt of the order.  The court also 1993 complainant filed the present administrative
decreed that thirty days after receipt of the last affidavit complaint against the respondent for professional
and position paper, or upon expiration of the period for delinquency consisting of his failure to file the required
filing the same, judgment shall be rendered on the case.[7] pleadings in behalf of the complainant and his spouse.
Complainant contends that due to respondent’s inaction he
lost the opportunity to present his cause and ultimately present every defense provided by law to enable the
the case itself.[18] latter’s cause to succeed.” (Miraflor vs. Hagad, 244 SCRA
106)
In his Comment[19]  dated March 17, 1993, respondent
denies that he committed professional misconduct in The facts, however, do not show that respondent
violation of his oath, stressing that he was not the original employed every legal and honorable means to advance the
counsel of complainant and his spouse. [20] He further avers cause of his client. Had respondent tried his best, he could
that when he agreed to represent complainant at the have found some other defenses available to his client; but
continuation of the preliminary conference in the main respondent was either too lazy or too convinced that his
case, it was for the sole purpose of asking leave of court to client had a losing case.
file an amended answer because he was made to believe
by the complainant that the answer was prepared by a For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required
non-lawyer. Upon discovering that the answer was in fact by the court, respondent practically closed the door to the
the work of a lawyer, forthwith he asked the court to possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. As the
relieve him as complainant’s counsel, but he was denied. Court once held, “ A client is bound by the negligence of his
He adds that he agreed to file the position paper for the lawyer.” (Diaz-Duarte vs. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)[31]
complainant upon the latter’s undertaking to provide him
with the documents which support the position that However, the Bar Confidant did not find complainant
plaintiffs are not the owners of the property in dispute.  As entirely faultless.  She observed, viz:
complainant had reneged on his promise, he claims that he Respondent’s allegation that complainant failed in his
deemed it more prudent not to file any position paper as it promise to submit the documents to support his claim was
would be a repetition of the answer. He offers the same not denied by complainant; hence, it is deemed admitted.
reason for not filing the memorandum on appeal with the Complainant is not without fault; for misrepresenting that
RTC.  Finally, respondent asserts that “he fully explained he could prove his claim through supporting documents,
his stand as regards Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T to the respondent was made to believe that he had a strong leg to
complainant.”[21] stand on. “A party cannot blame his counsel for negligence
when he himself was guilty of neglect.” (Macapagal vs.
Pursuant to our Resolution[22] dated May 10, 1993, Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 491)[32]
complainant filed his Reply[23] to
respondent’s Comment wherein he merely reiterated his On April 18, 2001, we referred the case to the
allegations in the Complaint. Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report
and recommendation.
On July 28, 1993, this Court directed respondent to
file his rejoinder within ten days from notice of Several hearings were set by the IBP but complainant
our Resolution.[24] But he failed to do so despite the lapse of did not appear even once.  Respondent attended five
a considerable period of time. This prompted the Court to hearings, but he failed to present evidence in support of
require respondent to show cause why he should not be his defense, as required by Investigating Commissioner
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt and to file his Victor C. Fernandez. This compelled the latter to make his
rejoinder, both within ten (10) days from notice.[25] report on the basis of the pleadings and evidence
forwarded by the Office of the Bar Confidant.
In his Explanation[26] dated February 28, 1997,
respondent admits having received a copy of the On October 11, 2002, Commissioner Fernandez
resolution requiring him to file a rejoinder. However, he issued his Report[33] wherein he concurred with the
asserts that he purposely did not file a rejoinder for “he findings and recommendation of the Office of the Bar
believed in good faith that a rejoinder to complainant’s Confidant.
reply is no longer necessary.” [27] He professes that in
electing not to file a rejoinder he did not intend to cast In a Resolution[34] dated April 26, 2003, the IBP Board
disrespect upon the Court.[28] of Governors adopted the Report of Commissioner
On June 16, 1997, we referred this case to the Office Fernandez.
of the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report and
recommendation.[29] The Court is convinced that respondent violated the
lawyer’s oath not only once but a number of times in
In its Report[30] dated February 6, 2001, the Office of regard to the handling of his clients’ cause.  The repeated
the Bar Confidant found respondent negligent in handling violations also involve defilement of several Canons in
the case of complainant and his wife and recommended the Code of Professional Responsibility.
that he be suspended from the practice of law for one
month.  The pertinent portions of the Report  read, thus: Right off, the Court notes that respondent attributes
his failure to file the required pleadings for the
It is to be noted that after appearing at the complainant and his wife invariably to his strong personal
preliminary conference before the Municipal Circuit Trial belief that it was unnecessary or futile to file the
Court, respondent was never heard from again. pleadings.  This was true with respect to the affidavits and
Respondent’s seeming indifference to the cause of his position paper at the MCTC level, the appeal memorandum
client, specially when the case was on appeal, caused the at the RTC level and the rejoinder at this Court’s level.  In
defeat of herein complainant.  Respondent practically the last instance, it took respondent as long as three years,
abandoned complainant in the midst of a storm.  This is under compulsion of a show cause order at that, only to
even more made serious of the fact that respondent, at that manifest his predisposition not to file a rejoinder after
time, was assigned at the Public Attorney’s Office- a all.  In other words, at the root of respondent’s
government entity mandated to provide free and transgressions is his seeming stubborn mindset against
competent legal assistance. the acts required of him by the courts.  This intransigent
attitude not only belies lack of diligence and commitment
“A lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause not only but evinces absence of respect for the authority of this
requires but also entitles him to deploy every honorable Court and the other courts involved.
means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to
 The lawyer’s oath embodies the fundamental them.  However, the failure is per se a violation of Rule
principles that guide every member of the legal fraternity. 18.03.
From it springs the lawyer’s duties and responsibilities
that any infringement thereof can cause his disbarment, It was respondent’s failure to file appeal
suspension or other disciplinary action.[35] memorandum before the RTC which made complainant
and his wife suffer as it resulted in their loss of the case. As
Found in the oath is the duty of a lawyer to protect found by the Office of the Bar Confidant, to which we fully
and safeguard the interest of his client. Specifically, it subscribe, in not filing the appeal memorandum
requires a lawyer to conduct himself “to the best of his respondent denied complainant and his spouse the chance
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to of putting up a fair fight in the dispute.  Canon
the courts as to his clients.” [36] This duty is further stressed 19prescribes that “(A) lawyer shall represent his client
in Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which with zeal within the bounds of the law.” He should exert all
mandates that “(A) lawyer shall serve his client with efforts to avail of the remedies allowed under the
competence and diligence.” law.  Respondent did not do so, thereby even putting to
naught the advantage which his clients apparently gained
In this case, evidence abound that respondent failed by prevailing at the MCTC level.  Verily, respondent did not
to demonstrate the required diligence in handling the case even bother to put up a fight for his clients. Clearly, his
of complainant and his spouse. As found by the Office of conduct fell short of what Canon 19 requires and breached
the Bar Confidant,[37]after appearing at the second the trust reposed in him by his clients.
preliminary conference before the MCTC, respondent had
not been heard of again until he commented on the We cannot sustain respondent’s excuse in not filing
complaint in this case.  Without disputing this fact, the affidavits and position paper with the MCTC and the
respondent reasons out that his appearance at the appeal memorandum with the RTC.  He claims that he did
conference was for the sole purpose of obtaining leave of not file the required pleadings because complainant failed
court to file an amended answer and that when he failed to to furnish him with evidence that would substantiate
obtain it because of complainant’s fault he asked the court complainant’s allegations in the answer.  He argues that
that he be relieved as counsel. [38] The explanation has absent the supporting documents, the pleadings he could
undertones of dishonesty for complainant had engaged have filed would just be a repetition of the
respondent for the entire case and not for just one answer.  However, respondent admits in his comment that
incident. The alternative conclusion is that respondent did complainant furnished him with the affidavit of persons
not know his procedure for under the Rules on Summary purporting to be barangay officials attesting to an alleged
Procedure[39] the amended answer is a prohibited pleading. admission by Felomino Hernandez, the brother of the
plaintiffs in the unlawful detainer case, that he had already
Even assuming respondent did in fact ask to be bought the disputed property. [44] This did not precipitate
relieved, this could not mean that less was expected from respondent into action despite the evidentiary value of the
him. Once a lawyer takes the cudgels for a client’s case, he affidavit, which was executed by disinterested persons.
owes it to his client to see the case to the end. This, we Said affidavit could have somehow bolstered the claim of
pointed out in Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[40] thus: complainant and his wife which was upheld by the MCTC
that plaintiffs are not the real parties-in-interest. While
It should be remembered that the moment a lawyer respondent could have thought this affidavit to be without
takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exert all probative value, he should have left it to the sound
effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer judgment of the court to determine whether the affidavit
who fails to exercise due diligence or abandons his client’s supports the assertions of his clients. That could have
cause make him unworthy of the trust reposed on him by happened had he filed the required position paper and
the latter.[41] annexed the affidavit thereto.

Also, we held in Santiago v. Fojas,[42] “every case a Further, notwithstanding his belief that without the
lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, supporting documents filing the required pleadings would
and competence, regardless of its importance and whether be a futile exercise, still respondent should have formally
he accepts if for a fee or for free.” In other words, whatever and promptly manifested in court his intent not to file the
the lawyer’s reason is for accepting a case, he is duty pleadings to prevent delay in the disposition of the case.
[45]
bound to do his utmost in prosecuting or defending it.  Specifically, the RTC would not have waited as it did for
the lapse of three months from June 5,1992, the date when
Moreover, a lawyer continues to be a counsel of plaintiffs-appellants submitted their appeal memorandum,
record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated before it rendered judgment. Had it known that
either by the act of his client or his own act, with respondent would not file the appeal memorandum, the
permission of the court. Until such time, the lawyer is court could have decided the case much earlier.
expected to do his best for the interest of his client [43]
For his failure to inform the court, respondent
Thus, when respondent was directed to file affidavits violated Canon 12, to wit:
and position paper by the MCTC, and appeal memorandum
by the RTC, he had no choice but to comply.  However, Canon 12: A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it
respondent did not bother to do so, in total disregard of his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
the court orders. This constitutes negligence and of justice. 
malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which mandates that “(A) Respondent likewise failed to demonstrate the
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him candor he owed his client. Canon 17 provides that “(A)
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
him liable.” be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
When complainant received the RTC decision, he talked to
Respondent’s failure to file the affidavits and position respondent about it.[46] However, respondent denied
paper at the MCTC did not actually prejudice his clients, for knowledge of the decision despite his receipt thereof as
the court nevertheless rendered a decision favorable to early as September 14, 1992. Obviously, he tried to evade
responsibility for his negligence. In doing so, respondent complainant sought the assistance of respondent as a PAO
was untruthful to complainant and effectively betrayed the lawyer, he misrepresented that his answer was prepared
trust placed in him by the latter. by someone who is not a lawyer. Second, when
complainant showed respondent a copy of their answer
On top of all these is respondent’s employment as a with the MCTC, he assured him that he had strong
lawyer of the Public Attorney’s Office which is tasked to evidence to support the defense in the answer that
provide free legal assistance for indigents and low-income plaintiffs were no longer the owners of the property in
persons so as to promote the rule of law in the protection dispute. However, all that he could provide respondent
of the rights of the citizenry and the efficient and speedy was the affidavit of the barangay officials. Last but not
administration of justice.[47] Against this backdrop, least, it is of public knowledge that the Public Attorney’s
respondent should have been more judicious in the Office is burdened with a heavy caseload.
performance of his professional obligations. As we held
in Vitriola v. Dasig[48] “lawyers in the government are All things considered, we conclude that suspension
public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public for two (2) months from the practice of law is the proper
service.” Furthermore, a lawyer from the government is and just penalty.
not exempt from observing the degree of diligence
required in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Wilfredo Oca is
6 of the Code provides that “the canons shall apply to ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
lawyers in government service in the discharge of their months from notice, with the warning that a similar
official tasks.” misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of
this decision be attached to respondent’s personal record
At this juncture, it bears stressing that much is in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished
demanded from those who engage in the practice of law to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
because they have a duty not only to their clients, but also (IBP) and to all the courts in the land.
to the court, to the bar, and to the public.  The lawyer’s
diligence and dedication to his work and profession not SO ORDERED.
only promote the interest of his client, it likewise help Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-
attain the ends of justice by contributing to the proper and Martinez,  and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
speedy administration of cases, bring prestige to the bar
and maintain respect to the legal profession.[49]

The determination of the appropriate penalty to be [1]

  See Luban, David Lawyers and Justice, Princeton
imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of University Press, 1988, p. xvii.
sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case. [2]
 Rollo, pp. 1-6.
[50]
 In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by this [3]
  Id. at 1.
Court consisted of reprimand,[51] fine of five hundred pesos [4]
  Id. at 26.
with warning,[52] suspension of three months, [53] six [5]
  Ibid.
months,[54] and even disbarment in aggravated cases.[55] [6]
 Rollo, p. 27.
[7]
  Id. at 7.
The facts and circumstances in this case indubitably [8]
  Id. at 10.
show respondent’s failure to live up to his duties as a [9]
  Id. at 11.
lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s [10]
 Id. at 15.
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby [11]
 Id. at 12-22.
warranting his suspension from the practice of law.  At [12]
 Id. at 15.
various stages of the unlawful detainer case, respondent [13]
 Id. at 19.
was remiss in the performance of his duty as counsel. [14]
 Id. at 20.
[15]
 Id. at 21.
To reiterate, respondent did not submit the affidavits [16]
 Id. at 22.
and position paper when required by the MCTC.  With his [17]
 Id. at 3.
resolution not to file the pleadings already firmed up, he [18]
 Ibid.
did not bother to inform the MCTC of his resolution in [19]
 Rollo, pp. 26-28.
mockery of the authority of the court. His stubbornness [20]
 Id. at 26.
continued at the RTC, for despite an order to file an appeal [21]
 Id. at 27-28.
memorandum, respondent did not file any. Neither did he [22]
 Id. at 28.
manifest before the court that he would no longer file the [23]
 Id. at 38.
pleading, thus further delaying the proceedings.  He had no [24]
 No copy of the Resolution dated July 28, 1993 is found
misgivings about his deviant behavior, for despite receipt in the Rollo. However, this Court’s order requiring
of a copy of the adverse decision by the RTC he opted not respondent to file a rejoinder within ten days from
to inform his clients accordingly. Worse, he denied notice is indicated in the minutes of the meeting of
knowledge of the decision when confronted by the the Second Division held on July 28, 1993.
complainant about it. [25]
 Rollo, p.44
[26]
 Id. at 46.
At this Court’s level, respondent’s stubborn and [27]
 Ibid.
uncaring demeanor surfaced again when he did not file a [28]
 Ibid.
rejoinder to complainant’s reply. [29]
 Rollo, p. 48.
[30]
 Id. at 49-56.
Respondent’s story projects in vivid detail his [31]
 Id. at 53-54.
appalling indifference to his clients’ cause, deplorable lack [32]
 Id. at 54.
of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his [33]
 Id. at 74-76.
duties as a lawyer. [34]
 Id. at 73.
[35]
 Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003, p. 7.
However, we are not unmindful of some facts which [36]
 Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Rules of Court.
extenuate respondent’s misconduct. First, when [37]
 Rollo, p. 53.
[38]
 Id. at 26-27.
[39]
 Rules on Summary Procedure
Section 2. Pleading-
A. Pleadings allowed- The only pleadings allowed to be
filed are the complaint and the answer (to the
complaint, counterclaim 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.
[40]
 G.R. No. 94457, 10 June 1992, 209 SCRA 722.
[41]
 Id. at 730-731.
[42]
 A.C. No. 4103, 7 Sept. 1995, 248 SCRA 68, 75-76.
[43]
 Orcino v.Gaspar, 344 Phil. 792, 800-801 (1997).
[44]
 Rollo, p. 27.
[45]
 Bergonia v. Merrera, A.C. No. 5024, 20 Feb. 2003, p. 7.
[46]
 Rollo, p. 3.
[47]
 Art. 14.2, Integrated Reorganization Plan, Feb. 1972;
Presidential Decree No. 1725.
[48]
 Supra, note 35 at 7.
[49]
 Supra, note 42 at 74.
[50]
 Ford v. Atty. Daitol, 320 Phil. 53, 59 (1995).
[51]
 Supra, note 42 at 76; Vda. De Oribiana v. Gerio, A.C. No.
1582, 88 SCRA 586, 592, 28 Feb. 1979.
[52]
 Basas v. Icawat, A.C. No. 4282, 24 Aug. 2000, 338 SCRA
648, 652.
[53]
 Supra, note 50 at 59.
[54]
 Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc., v. Saquilabon, 337
Phil. 555, 559 (1997).
[55]
 Mariveles v. Mallari, A.C. Case No. 3294, 219 SCRA 44,
461, 17 Feb. 1993.