Agency Additional Cases

8/12/2019 Agency Additional Cases

1/32

FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. No. 56627, August 17, 1981 ]

CEBU STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLEJUDGE JOSE R. RAMOLETE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU,

MULTIFARMS AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ASSISTANTCLERK OF COURT NICOLAS F. JOMUAD, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF CEBU

AND/OR HER LAWFUL DEPUTY SHERIFF FELIPE V. BELANDRES,RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O NTEEHANKEE, At!"g #.$.%The Court sets aside the order of respondent judge dated March 16, 1981, denying the appealof herein petitioner in Civil Case No. R1!""# of that court, and instead ordering the issuance ofa $rit of e%ecution, on the alleged ground that at the ti&e la$yer 'rancisco M. Malilong, (r. filedon )ehalf of petitioner *therein defendant+ the record on appeal, notice of appeal and appeal)ond and perfected petitioners appeal *ad&ittedly five days )efore the lapse of the -#dayregle&entary period+, he had no authority yet fro& the defendant to appear as its colla)oratingcounsel, said la$yer having filed his for&al notice of appearance as such counsel only ninedays after$ards. The petition for manam!"is therefore granted and the court is here)yordered to give due course to the appeal. The entry of appearance of an attorney under section/1 of Rule 1-8 of the Rules of Court is &erely to ena)le the officers concerned to effectivelyserve processes on the attorney of record. The lac0 of such for&al notice or entry of appearance does not render pleadings filed )y a ne$ colla)orating counsel to )e of no legal effect.

n cto)er 11, 19!8, herein private respondent Multifar&s 2gro3ndustrial 4evelop&ent

Corporation filed a co&plaint *as plaintiff+ for consignation against herein petitioner *asdefendant+ in the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Ce)u, presided )y respondent judge.

2fter issues had )een joined, $herein only a 5uestion of la$ $as involved the properinterpretation of Custo&s 2d&inistrative rder No. 8, series 19!", dated May /!, 19!- so thatrespondent court si&ply re5uired the parties to su)&it affidavit and counteraffidavit together$ith their docu&entary evidence in support thereof, judg&ent $as rendered in favor of hereinrespondent, to $it 1. 4eclaring *a+ the lia)ility of the plaintiff to the defendant to )e in the su&of 79,!8-.-- *)+ defendants 3nvoice No. "91! dated (uly 1", 19!8 as C2NC::4 *c+ thea&ount of 7",!"-.-- as validly consignated $ith the office of the Cler0 of Court to )e added tothe advance pay&ent of 7;,###.## and applied as full pay&ent of plaintiffs lia)ility to thedefendant under par. *c+ a)ove /. rdering the defendant to pay plaintiff da&ages )y $ay ofattorneys fees in the su& of 71,###.## and dis&issing defendants counterclai& for lac0 of&erit.

n 4ece&)er 1#, 198#, $ell $ithin the regle&entary period to perfect the appeal, petitioner, thru

counsel Malilong, filed $ith the trial court a notice of appeal, stating its intention to elevate thecase to the o?o)rado, the counselof record and that there $as no sho$ing that the appeal )ond had )een paid.To sho$ that the appeal )ond had in fact )een paid ti&ely on 4ece&)er 1#, 198#, petitioner, on4ece&)er 19, 198# filed its notice of filing cash appeal )ond, attaching thereto the confir&atoryreceipt@1Adated 4ece&)er 1#, 198# as issued )y the Cler0 of Court of the Court of 'irst 3nstanceof Ce)u in lieu of fficial Receipt No. -6!!-!1 for 71/#.## issued )y the 7rovincial Treasurersffice to $ho& the appeal )ond $as paid, as said official receipt had to )e retained )y the Cler0of Court. n the sa&e day, la$yer 'rancisco Malilong, (r. filed a for&al notice of appearance ascounsel for the defendant in colla)oration $ith 2tty. =alentin 2. >o?o)rado, the first counsel ofrecord.

2fter a period of &ore than t$o &onths, or on 'e)ruary /6, 1981, respondent Multifar&s filed a

&otion for e%ecution alleging that judg&ent had already )eco&e final and e%ecutory on thealleged ground that the defendant $as not a)le to file a notice of appeal and record on appeal$ithin the -#day regle&entary period to perfect the appeal. n March -, 1981, herein petitionerfiled an pposition to the &otion for e%ecution contending, as a)ove stated, that it had ti&elyperfected the appeal on 4ece&)er 1#, 198#, $ell $ithin the prescri)ed period.n March 16, 1981, respondent judge issued his challenged order denying the appeal andordering the issuance of a $rit of e%ecution on the ground that $hile indeed the notice of appealand the record on appeal $ere filed on ti&e and the appeal )ond $as also paid on ti&e, thesa&e $ere of no force and effect since the la$yer $ho signed the sa&e $as not the attorney ofrecord.'ailing in his &otion for the reconsideration of said order, petitioner instituted this actionof manam!", praying that respondent judge )e ordered to i&&ediately reinstate the appeal,approve the record on appeal and thence for$ard the records of the case to this Court for revie$and for the pay&ent of costs )y private respondent. 2s urgently prayed for, a te&poraryrestraining order against enforce&ent of the challenged order $as issued on 2pril 1", 1981 )ythis Court, and upon receipt of the re5uired co&&ent of respondents, the Court declared thecase su)&itted for decision.

The 5uestion for deter&ination is $hether the lac0 of a for&al $ritten notice of appearance )ythe colla)orating la$yer for herein petitioner, 2tty. Malilong, (r., $ould affect adversely thevalidity of the appeal ti&ely perfected )y such counsel.


2/32

3t has )een held that as a logical corollary of the presu&ption that a la$yer is authori?ed toappear for the party he represents, it is also presu&ed that the la$yer is authori?ed )y, and hasconferred $ith, his client regarding the case )efore he files an i&portant responsive pleading forand on )ehalf of the latter.3f respondent judge entertained any serious dou)t on the authority of 2tty. Malilong even afterthe latter had for&ally entered his appearance in $riting as colla)orating counsel for the thereinpetitioner, nine days after the perfection of the appeal, respondent judge should have re5uiredthe said attorney to produce or prove his authority, in accordance $ith the a)ove5uoted Rule.Respondent judge in ruling that the appeal seasona)ly perfected )y 2tty. Malilong on )ehalf ofpetitioner $as of no force and effect not$ithstanding that petitioner indu)ita)ly proved at thereconsideration hearing that 2tty. Malilong had )een duly e&ployed as petitioners legal counselsince 'e)ruary 16, 198# at 7/,;##.## per &onth, and in dis&issing the appeal, &anifestly erredand acted $ith grave a)use of discretion.Respondent judge clearly ignored the oftrepeated principles laid do$n )y the Court that *2+rigid adherence to the technical rules of procedure disregards the funda&ental ai& of procedureto serve as an aid to justice, not as a &eans for its frustration, and the o)jective of the Rules ofCourt to afford litigants just, speedy and ine%pensive deter&ination of their controversy. Thus,e%cusa)le i&perfections of for& and technicalities of procedure or lapses in the literal or rigido)servance of a procedural rule or nonjurisdictional deadline provided therein should )eoverloo0ed and )rushed aside as trivial and indecisive in the interest of fair play and justice$hen pu)lic policy is not involved, no prejudice has )een caused the adverse party and the courthas not )een deprived of its authority or jurisdiction. @"A

The Court does not loo0 $ith favor on such disregard of )asic rules and principles )y the lo$ercourts $hich needlessly co&pel the aggrieved parties to resort to the higher courts for redressand ta0e up the ti&e $hich they could $ell devote to &ore &eritorious cases, and it $ill

ad&inistratively call judges to account therefor in appropriate cases $hich &anifest grossignorance of the la$ or inco&petence. Bhile the Court has held that it $ould not hold judgesad&inistratively lia)le for honest errors of judg&ent, this case can hardly )e said to fall $ithinsuch a category.

The Court has noted a co&&on error of trial courts and la$yers in cases of appeals fro& theCourts of 'irst 3nstance to the


3/32

respondent judge fro& further proceeding $ith Civil Case No. C/""/ in the Court of 'irst3nstance of Ri?al *no$ Regional Trial Court+ on the ground of lac0 of jurisdiction to annul a finaland e%ecutory judg&ent rendered )y the Court of 'irst 3nstance ofCavite *no$ Regional TrialCourt+ in Civil Case No. TM//-.The antecedent facts are as follo$sn May 18, 1966, petitioners filed an action for partition $ith the Court of 'irst 3nstanceof Cavite, ranch 3, doc0eted as Civil Case No. TM//-, against 2ntonio, ly andrespondents :ucina and Trinidad, all surna&ed


4/32

contention of private respondents that they $ere not served $ith su&&ons in Case No. TM//-in the Cavite court is untena)le. 3n their &e&orandu& filed $ith this Court, they ad&it that they$ere served $ith su&&ons thru their codefendant 2ntonio


5/32

loan having &atured as none of the lots have )een convey to )uyers, such that the latter couldno$ ta0e the place of petitioner as &ortgagors, the &ortgage $as e%trajudicially foreclosed anda certificate of sale $as e%ecuted in favor of private respondent anco 'ilipino.3n their ans$er of 1# (une 1988, private respondents ad&itted the loan of 76,6-#,69#.## for$hich petitioner had e%ecuted a pro&issory note secured )y a real estate &ortgage on theproperties descri)ed in the co&plaint. Do$ever, they denied that petitioner had availed itself ofanco 'ilipinos Do&e 'inancing 7lan, averring instead that under the pro&issory note and thecontract of &ortgage, the su)ject loan $ould fall due 1 year fro& date or on ; (anuary 1986and that upon default of petitioner, anco 'ilipino could i&&ediately foreclose the &ortgageunder 2ct No. -1-; as in fact it did, upon co&pliance $ith the legal re5uire&ents $ith respect toe%trajudicial foreclosures.

n /1 (une 1988, petitioner served upon anco 'ilipino a $ritten re5uest for ad&ission of thetruth of certain &atters set forth as follo$s1. The plaintiff *7


6/32

SE#OND DIVISION[ G.R. No. 1286-6, 4 1-, 2**) ]

CRISELDA F. JOSE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANILO OMEGA,RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O NASTRIA(ARTINE, $.%efore us is a petition erroneously entitled as a F7etition for Revie$ on CertiorariG $hich should)e a petition for certiorari under Rule 6; of the Rules of Court.

The factual )ac0ground of the case is as follo$s

n Nove&)er 1", 199", the Regional Trial Court of Ce)u City *ranch //+ rendered a decisionin Civil Case No. C1;!#9, entitled F4an ilo &ega, 7laintiff, versus, Criselda '. (ose,4efendant.G, the dispositive portion of $hich reads as follo$sFBDR'R, )ased on the evidence thus presented, th is Court finds for the plaintiff.(udg&ent is here)y rendered declaring the March -, 1981 &arriage )et$een plaintiff 4anilo&ega and Criselda '. (ose, null and void4 !"!t!o. Custody over the three children (oselyn,4anilo, (r. and (ordan, all surna&ed &ega shall )e entrusted to plaintiff 4anilo &ega.

F'urnish the :ocal Civil Registrar of Manila $ith a copy of this judg&ent. No costs.

F


7/32


8/32

Rule, an attorney $ho appears $ :a%&$in a case )efore a lo$er court shall )e presu&ed tocontinue representing his client on appeal, unless he files a for&al petition $ithdra$ing hisappearance in the appellate court.

7etitioner failed to pursue her appeal for al&ost t$o years.


9/32

&otion.@"A

2tty. Mag)itang filed a Notice of 2ppeal@;A$ith the RTC, $hich gave due course to the sa&e.@6AThe records reveal that on 4ece&)er 1;, /##-, respondent lena I. Iarcia $rote a letter to(udge 2rturo M. ernardo, 2cting (udge of RTC Iapan, ranch 8!, stating that they $eresurprised to receive a co&&unication fro& the court infor&ing the& that their notice of appeal$as ready for disposition.


10/32

SE#OND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 5-681, 4 )1, 1982 ]LILIA B. BARRERA, REPRESENTED BY MIGUEL R. LOGARTA, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,

PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, JUDGE OF THE COURT OFFIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BRANCH II, AND CARMEN BELLEA, ELEUTERIA CABRERA,

BALDOMERO HERNANI, BENJAMIN SEVILLA, AND LUCAS DE LA CALADA,RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O NDE #ASTRO, $.%


11/32

'ro& a casual perusal of the order of dis&issal of (une 11, 198#, Be can readily understand theconsiderations $hich pro&pted the respondent (udge in dis&issing petitioners co&plaint,especially considering that since the filing of the co&plaint on 4ece&)er 1-, 19!8 up to theissuance of the order of dis&issal on (une 11, 198#, or a lapsed period of a)out eighteen&onths, the pretrial stage of the case has not yet )een ter&inated, sho$ing that its progress$as a)nor&ally very slo$. Moreover, unrefuted )y petitioner is private respondents clai& that inall the pretrial conferences scheduled )y the lo$er court, petitioner has never appeared nordoes the record sho$ that she had e%ecuted a special po$er of attorney in favor of either herattorneyinfact Miguel R. :ogarta or her counsel of record to serve as the $ritten authority torepresent her in said pretrial conferences, $ith po$er to co&pro&ise the case. @;AThis is a&easure conducive to the early and e%peditious ter&ination of the case, $hich is consistent $ith

the purpose of a pretrial as provided under


12/32

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 1)7785, S/t/0/ *-, 2*** ]NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. VINE DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY VICENTE C. PONCE@ AND ROMONAFECORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY OSCAR F. TIRONA, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION:ANGANI3AN, $.%

2lthough not authori?ed to handle cases pending in the Court of 2ppeals and the


13/32

property fro& 71,;##.## to 7-,;##.## per s5uare &eter, or an increase of 7/,###.## per s5uare&eter. The a&end&ent $as &ade in response to the letter of reconsideration dated (une 9,199! filed )y Ro&onafe.

!. Bhile the case $as pending, petitioner negotiated $ith Ro&onafe for the ac5uisition of anadditional area of /!,/9-.88 s5uare &eters of its adjacent land.

8. 2fter due trial, the lo$er court rendered its 4ecision on


14/32

No Legal Basis forDismissal of Appeal

3t is undisputed that the


15/32

!ANT$! ENT%RA &$C$R#A '$%NDAT"$N( "NC)( REPRE!ENTED B* GABR"EL &)ABAD( C$#PLA"NANT( !) ATT*) R"C&ARD ) '%N+( RE!P$NDENT)

224, (.This is a dis)ar&ent case against a la$yer $ho sued a for&er client in representation of a ne$ one.

T/ F4ts 4"< t/ #4s/Co&plainant


16/32

i&possi)le for the la$yer to identify and erase such entrusted 0no$ledge $ith faultless precisionor loc0 the sa&e into an iron )o% $hen suing the for&er client on )ehalf of a ne$ one.

Dere, the evidence sho$s that Docor&a 'oundation availed itself of the legal services of 2tty.'un0 in connection $ith, a&ong others, the transfer of one of the properties su)ject of theseveral suits that the la$yer su)se5uently filed against the foundation. 3ndeed, 2tty. 'un0collected attorneyEs fees fro& the foundation for such services. Thus, he had an o)ligation not touse any 0no$ledge he ac5uired during that relationship, including the fact that the propertyunder litigation e%isted at all, $hen he sued the foundation.

The Court tinds it fitting to adopt the C4s reco&&endation as $ell as the 37 oard of

Iovernors resolution respecting the case.

BDR'R, the Court 2''3RM< the resolution of the oard or Iovernors of the 3ntegratedar of the 7hilippines dated 2pril 16, /#1 # and (une /6, /#11 and

T/ Issu/

The issue in this case is $hether 2tty. Go?/"os.

The relationship )et$een a la$yer and hisher client should ideally )e i&)ued $ith the highestlevel of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that &ust prevail to pro&ote afull disclosure of the clientEs &ost confidential infor&ation to hisher la$yer for an unha&perede%change of infor&ation )et$een the&. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidentialinfor&ation to hisher la$yer )ased on an e%pectation fro& the la$yer of ut&ost secrecy anddiscretion the la$yer, for his part, is duty)ound to o)serve candor, fairness and loyalty in alldealings and transactions $ith the client. @6A 7art of the la$yerEs duty in this regard is to avoidrepresenting conflicting interests, a &atter covered )y Rule 1;.#-, Canon 1; of the Code of7rofessional Responsi)ility 5uoted )elo$

Rule 1;.#-. 2 la$yer shall not represent conflicting interests e%cept )y $ritten consent of allconcerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

FThe proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation $here the


17/32

opposing parties are present clients in the sa&e action or in an unrelated action.G @!ATheprohi)ition also applies even if the Fla$yer $ould not )e called upon to contend for one clientthat $hich the la$yer has to oppose for the other client, or that there $ould )e no occasion touse the confidential infor&ation ac5uired fro& one to the disadvantage of the other as the t$oactions are $holly unrelated.G @8ATo )e held accounta)le under this rule, it is Fenough that theopposing parties in one case, one of $ho& $ould lose the suit, are present clients and thenature or conditions of the la$yerEs respective retainers $ith each of the& $ould affect theperfor&ance of the duty of undivided fidelity to )oth clients.G@9A

(urisprudence has provided three tests in deter&ining $hether a violation of the a)ove rule ispresent in a given case.

ne test is $hether a la$yer is duty)ound to fight for an issue or clai& in )ehalf of one clientand, at the sa&e ti&e, to oppose that clai& for the other client. Thus, if a la$yerEs argu&ent forone client has to )e opposed )y that sa&e la$yer in arguing for the other client, there is aviolation of the rule.

2nother test of inconsistency of interests is @/t/ t/ 4/t4"/ o> 4 "/@ /+4t!o" @ou+ t/I"t/g4t/< 34 o> t/ :!+!!"/s

n -1 May /##!, the 37 oard of Iovernors passed Resolution No. S=33/##!/-#, adoptingand approving the 3nvestigating Co&&issionerEs Report and Reco&&endation, $ith

&odification, thus

R

R


25/32

nce a la$yer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is e%pected to serve hisclient $ith co&petence, and to attend to his clientEs cause $ith diligence, care and devotion.@1"A2s held in San&'a>( . F(?a"@1;A

3t is a%io&atic that no la$yer is o)liged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person $ho&ay $ish to )eco&e his client. De has the right to decline e&ploy&ent, su)ject, ho$ever, toCanon 1" of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility. nce he agrees to ta0e up the cause of@hisA client, the la$yer o$es fidelity to such cause and &ust al$ays )e &indful of the trust andconfidence reposed in hi&. De &ust serve the client $ith co&petence and diligence, andcha&pion the latterEs cause $ith $holehearted fidelity, care and devotion. lse$ise stated, heo$es entire devotion to the interest of his client, $ar& ?eal in the &aintenance and defense of

his clientEs rights, and the e%ertion of his ut&ost learning and a)ility to the end that nothing )eta0en or $ithheld fro& his client, save )y the rules of the la$, legally applied. This si&ply &eansthat his client is entitled to the )enefit of any and every re&edy and defense that is authori?ed )ythe la$ of the land and he &ay e%pect his la$yer to assert every such re&edy or defense. 3f&uch is de&anded fro& an attorney, it is )ecause the entrusted privilege to practice la$ carries$ith it the correlative duties not only to the client )u also to the court, to the )ar, and to thepu)lic. 2 la$yer $ho perfor&s his duty $ith diligence and candor not only protects the interest ofhis client he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the )ar, and helps &aintain therespect of the co&&unity to the legal profession. @16A

3n this case, respondent attri)utes his delay in filing the appropriate cri&inal case to the a)senceof conciliation proceedings )et$een co&plainant and her si)lings )efore the )arangay asre5uired under 2rticle /// of the Civil Code and the :ocal Iovern&ent Code. Do$ever, thise%cuse is )elied )y the Certification to 'ile 2ction )y the ffice of the L!:(n>Ta>a:ama3a:a, ffice of the arangay Council, arangay 4aanghari, Navotas. The

Certification to 'ile 2ction $as issued on 1 (uly /##/, $hich $as &ore than four &onths )eforeco&plainant engaged respondentEs legal services on /; Nove&)er /##/. RespondentEsallegation that co&plainant failed to infor& hi& a)out the e%istence of the Certification to 'ile

2ction is hard to )elieve considering co&plainantEs deter&ination to file the case against hersi)lings. Clearly, respondent has )een negligent in handling co&plainantEs case.

3n Ca%'4( . A&&3. D$ L(" R$3$",@1!Athe respondent la$yer $ho failed to file a co&plaintaffidavit)efore the prosecutorEs office, restituted the 71#,### acceptance fee paid to hi&. Therespondent la$yer in Ca%'4($as repri&anded )y the Court $ith a $arning that he should )e&ore careful in the perfor&ance of his duty to his clients.

3n this case, co&plainant is as0ing for the refund of 71",### out of the 71;,### acceptance feeconsidering that, apart fro& sending a letter to the City ngineer of Navotas City, respondent didnothing &ore to advance his clientEs cause during the si% &onths that co&plainant engaged hislegal services. Be agree $ith the reco&&endation of the 3nvestigating Co&&issioner and the

37 oard of Iovernors that a refund is in order.

HEREFORE, the Court AFFIRSthe /8 cto)er /#11 Resolution No. SS/#111"- of theoard of Iovernors of the 3ntegrated ar of the 7hilippines, reducing the reco&&ended penaltyfro& si% &onths to ad&onition. The Court finds 2tty. Rosario . autista GI&T'of violatingCanon 18 and Rule 18.#- of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility and he is ADONISHEDtoe%ercise greater care and diligence in the perfor&ance of his duty to his clients. 2tty. autista isordered to RESTITTEto co&plainant 71",### out of the 71;,### acceptance fee.

SO ORDERED.

B%'(n, D$* Ca"&'**(, P$%$2,and P$%*a"-B$%na=$, JJ., concur.

SE#OND DIVISION

[ A.#. No. 9)87 Fo0/+ #3D #4s/ No. *5(1562B, $u"/ 2*, 2*12 ]EMILIA R. HERNANDE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA,

RESPONDENT.R E S O L U T I O N

SERENO, $.%This is a dis)ar&ent case filed )y &ilia Dernande? *co&plainant+ against her la$yer, 2tty.=enancio . 7adilla *respondent+ of 7adilla 7adilla autista :a$ ffices, for his allegednegligence in the handling of her case.

The records disclose that co&plainant and her hus)and $ere the respondents in an eject&entcase filed against the& $ith the Regional Trial Court of Manila *RTC+.

3n a 4ecision@1Adated /8 (une /##/, penned )y (udge Ros&ari 4. Carandang *(udgeCarandang+, the RTC ordered that the 4eed of


26/32

infor&ed her of the Resolution.

n 9


27/32

in D!*a%'a, J%. . C%!2,@/6Ato $it

3t &ust )e e&phasi?ed that the pri&ary duty of la$yers is to o)ey the la$s of the land andpro&ote respect for the la$ and legal processes. They are e%pected to )e in the forefront in theo)servance and &aintenance of the rule of la$. This duty carries $ith it the o)ligation to )e $ellinfor&ed of the e%isting la$s and to 0eep a)reast $ith legal develop&ents, recent enact&entsand jurisprudence. 3t is i&perative that they )e conversant $ith )asic legal principles. Jnlessthey faithfully co&ply $ith such duty, they &ay not. )e a)le to discharge co&petently anddiligently their o)ligations as &e&)ers of the )ar. Borse, they &ay )eco&e suscepti)le toco&&itting &ista0es.

3n his MR, respondent )egged for the consideration of the 37, clai&ing that the reason for hisfailure to file the proper pleading $as that he did not have enough ti&e to ac5uaint hi&selfthoroughly $ith the factual &ilieu of the case. The 37 reconsidered and thereafter significantlyreduced the penalty originally i&posed.

Respondents plea for leniency should not have )een granted.

The supposed lac0 of ti&e given to respondent to ac5uaint hi&self $ith the facts of the casedoes not e%cuse his negligence.

Rule 18.#/ of the Code provides that a la$yer shall not handle any legal &atter $ithoutade5uate preparation. Bhile it is true that respondent $as not co&plainants la$yer fro& the trialto the appellate court stage, this fact did not e%cuse hi& fro& his duty to diligently study a casehe had agreed to handle. 3f he felt he did not have enough ti&e to study the pertinent &attersinvolved, as he $as approached )y co&plainants hus)and only t$o days )efore the e%piration

of the period for filing the 2ppellants rief, respondent should have filed a &otion for e%tensionof ti&e to file the proper pleading instead of $hatever pleading he could co&e up $ith, just to)eat the deadline set )y the Court of 2ppeals.@/!A

Moreover, respondent does not deny that he $as given notice of the fact that he filed the $rongpleading. Do$ever, instead of e%plaining his side )y filing a co&&ent, as ordered )y theappellate court, he chose to ignore the C2s rder. De clai&s that he $as under thepresu&ption that co&plainant and her hus)and had already settled the case, )ecause he hadnot heard fro& the hus)and since the filing of the latters Me&orandu& of 2ppeal.

This e%planation does not e%cuse respondents actions.

'irst of all, there $ere several re&edies that respondent could have availed hi&self of, fro& the&o&ent he received the Notice fro& the C2 to the &o&ent he received the dis)ar&entCo&plaint filed against hi&. ut )ecause of his negligence, De chose to sit on the case and do

nothing.


28/32

THIRD DIVISION

[ A.#. No. 69*), A!+ 16, 2*12 ]SUETTE DEL MUNDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO,

RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N:ER&AS(3ERNA3E, $.%efore the Court is an ad&inistrative co&plaint @1Afor dis)ar&ent filed )y co&plainant


29/32

'or every pay&ent that


30/32

Moreover, a la$yer is o)liged to hold in trust &oney of his client that &ay co&e to hispossession. 2s trustee of such funds, he is )ound to 0eep the& separate and apart fro& hiso$n. Money entrusted to a la$yer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing ofa case if not utili?ed, &ust )e returned i&&ediately upon de&and. 'ailure to return gives rise toa presu&ption that he has &isappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on hi&. 2nd theconversion of funds entrusted to hi& constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and)etrayal of pu)lic confidence in the legal profession. @1;A

To stress, the practice of la$ is a privilege given to la$yers $ho &eet the high standards of legalproficiency and &orality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They &ust perfor& their

fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance $ith thevalues and nor&s of the legal profession as e&)odied in the Code of 7rofessionalResponsi)ility.@16A'alling short of this standard, the Court $ill not hesitate to discipline an erringla$yer )y i&posing an appropriate penalty )ased on the e%ercise of sound judicial discretion inconsideration of the surrounding facts. @1!A

Bith the foregoing dis5uisition and 2tty. CapistranoEs ad&ission of his fault and negligence, theCourt finds the penalty of one year suspension fro& the practice of la$, as reco&&ended )y the37C4, sufficient sanction for his violation. Do$ever, the Court finds proper to &odify thea&ount to )e returned to a&'(n 'n &0$ :%$"$n& #(m:*a'n& &( &0$ $;;$#& &0a& &0$ ?!>m$n&" 'n &0$ ;(%m$% #a"$"


31/32

4ece&)er 1/, 1988 and Nove&)er 1/, 1988, respectively. 2 &otion for reconsideration fro&such resolution $as li0e$ise denied $ith finality.

Respondent filed a Motion for the 3ssuance of a 7rohi)itory or Restraining rder *dated (uly 6,1988+ in C2I.R.


32/32

judg&ent, respondent is also guilty of foru& shopping.

3n V'**an!$a . A%$1!/

Documents

Agency Additional Cases