Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1976 > July 1976 Decisions > A.C. No. 1213 July 29, 1976 - JOSE V. DE LA RAMA v. WILFRIDO E. DIZON:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1213. July 29, 1976.]

JOSE V. DE LA RAMA, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILFRIDO E. DIZON, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Complainant De la Rama charged respondent Dizon with malpractice and unethical conduct for having supplanted him (De la Rama) as the lawyer of Lourdes G. Fernandez and DI’ Mark’s Inc., an entity headed by the husband of Lourdes. Dizon denied the charged and, after the complainant had filed his reply, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The hearings in the Solicitor General’s Office scheduled on four dates were postponed at the instance of De la Rama and over the objection of respondent who insisted that the case should be dismissed. At the hearing set on a later date, De la Rama did not appear. The respondent moved for the dismissal of the case. The case was no longer set for hearing and the Acting Solicitor General recommended that the complaint be dismissed.

The Supreme Court ruled that De la Rama’s apathy to the prosecution of his charge is strongly indicative of its lack of merit. If it were true that he had a legitimate grievance against respondent, he would have acted with vigor and dispatch in presenting his evidence.

Complaint dismissed for failure to prosecute.


SYLLABUS


1. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; DISBARMENT; DISMISSAL OF CHARGE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. — Where the hearings of a disbarment case scheduled on four dates were postponed at the instance of the complaint over the objection of the respondent who insisted that the case should be dismissed and, at the hearing set on a latter date, the complainant did not appear and did not, thereafter, bother to ask that his complaint be again set of hearing, the complaint for disbarment should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Complaint’s apathy to the prosecution of this charge is strongly indicative of its lack of merit. If it were true that he had a legitimate grievance against the respondent, he would have acted with vigor and dispatch in presenting his evidence.


R E S O L U T I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Jose V. de la Rama, in his verified complaint dated June 21, 1973, charged Atty. Wilfrido E. Dizon with malpractice and unethical conduct for having supplanted him (De la Rama) as the lawyer of Lourdes G. Fernandez and DI’Mark’s Inc., an entity headed by Arthur Fernandez, the husband of Lourdes.

Respondent Dizon denied the charge. He branded it as an act of harassment. In his comment he reproduced the letters of De la Rama to the Fernandez spouses and to Father Robert Bomeisil, S.J. of Ateneo de Manila, chairman of the board of directors of DI’Mark’s Inc. In those three letters Atty. De la Rama admitted that about the middle of July, 1971 he was no longer in good terms with the Fernandez spouses, that his position as counsel had become untenable, and that he was billing them P63,600 for unpaid attorney’s fees.

In the same comment, Atty. Dizon revealed that Mrs. Fernandez asked Atty. De la Rama to account for the sum of P210,000 which he had received from DI’Mark’s Inc. She accused him of having given her a Xerox copy of a fake resolution of this Court in the fictitious case of Ramon Roces v. Lourdes G. Fernandez, L-32819.

Respondent Dizon annexed to his answer (a) the affidavits of Mrs. Fernandez and Father Bomeisil regarding the alleged questionable actions of Atty. De la Rama, (b) copies of the latter’s withdrawal of appearance in certain cases, and (c) a copy of Dizon’s appearance in L-32709, DI’Mark’s Inc. v. Hon. G.A. Buendia, etc., Et. Al. Dizon prayed that the disbarment complaint be dismissed outright for lack of merit.

After the complainant had filed his reply, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation report and recommendation.

The hearings in the Solicitor General’s Office scheduled on February 4 and 20, March 25 and April 26, 1974 were postponed at the instance of Atty. De la Rama and over the objection of the respondent who insisted that the case should be dismissed. At the hearing set on July 11, 1974 Atty. De la Rama did not appear. The respondent moved for the dismissal of the case. Thereafter, the case was not set for hearing anymore. The Acting Solicitor General in his report of July 6, 1976 recommended that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant De la Rama’s apathy to the prosecution of his charge is strongly indicative of its lack of merit. If it were true that he had a legitimate grievance against respondent Dizon, he would have acted with vigor and dispatch in presenting his evidence. But after July 11, 1974 he did not bother to ask that his complaint be again set for hearing. As already noted, the prior scheduled hearings were not held due to his motions for postponement and nonappearance.

Parenthetically, it may be mentioned that on November 26, 1971, or long before De la Rama filed his complaint against Dizon, Mrs. Fernandez filed against De la Rama a complaint for disbarment, charging him with deceit, malpractice and other gross misconduct. That case, which is Administrative Case No. 1051, is pending in the Solicitor General’s Office.

WHEREFORE, Atty. De la Rama’s complaint for disbarment against respondent Dizon is dismissed for failure to prosecute. (See Worthington v. Fernandez, Adm. Case No. 1085, June 10, 1976).

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Martin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.

Martin, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1976 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25373 July 1, 1976 - IRENEO ROQUE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. UNAV July 6, 1976 - IN RE: ROSALIE L. PARAGUAS

  • A.C. No. 1637 July 6, 1976 - IN RE: RUFILLO D. BUCANA

  • G.R. No. L-27472 July 6, 1976 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41937 July 6, 1976 - FOITAF-ASSOCIATED v. CARMELO NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-28145 July 7, 1976 - SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41286 July 7, 1976 - NATIVIDAD VDA. DE IGNACIO v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. L-42215 July 13, 1976 - ENCARNACION LOPEZ VDA. DE BALUYUT v. LEONOR INES LUCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-31177 July 15, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO M. GODOY

  • G.R. No. L-39257 July 23, 1976 - EDMOND M. RUIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33621 July 26, 1976 - MRR YARD CREW UNION, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35253 July 26, 1976 - CITY OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43648 July 26, 1976 - WENCESLAO CENTENO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43511 July 28, 1976 - EMILIO GREGORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1213 July 29, 1976 - JOSE V. DE LA RAMA v. WILFRIDO E. DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-23634 July 29, 1976 - GAMBOA’S INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33235-6 July 29, 1976 - BRUNA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-43345 July 29, 1976 - JOSEFINA S. DE LAUREANO v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • A.M. No. 74-MJ July 30, 1976 - SALVADOR LACSON, JR. v. RAMON POSADAS

  • A.C. No. 129-J July 30, 1976 - CASTRO RAVAL v. GUILLERMO ROMERO

  • A.C. No. 1328-MJ July 30, 1976 - VIRGINIA DE GUZMAN v. ROMEO C. DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-27606 July 30, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMICIANO BERAME

  • G.R. No. L-29052 July 30, 1976 - CARIDAD ARGUELLES v. GUILLERMO TIMBANCAYA

  • G.R. No. L-29205 July 30, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO EXTRA

  • G.R. No. L-32192 July 30, 1976 - ESPERANZA BAPTISTA, ET AL. v. URBANO CARILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35621 July 30, 1976 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39135 July 30, 1976 - A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39941 July 30, 1976 - IN RE: BENJAMIN KO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-41554 July 30, 1976 - ESPERANZA VALENCIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41756 July 30, 1976 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. GENBANCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41804 July 30, 1976 - LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. CORETTE S. MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42451 July 30, 1976 - CALIXTA MERCADO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42639 July 30, 1976 - ASUNCION T. CABINTA, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-43757-58 July 30, 1976 - REGINO GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43851 July 30, 1976 - LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. CORETTE S. MAGBANUA, ET AL.