FIRST
DIVISION
PERLA
COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC.,
Complainant,
A. M. No. 3907
April 10, 1997
-versus-
ATTY.
BENEDICTO G. SAQUILABON,
Respondent. R
E S O L U T I O N
VITUG, J.:
Perla Compania
de Seguros, Inc., through its
Senior Vice-President, James O. Lim, has charged Atty. Benedicto G.
Saquilabon
with having violated his oath of office and, in particular, his
commitment
to "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of [his]
knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the Courts as to [his]
clients."[1]
In its
resolution, dated 25 January 1993, the
Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
["IBP"]
for investigation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
In its letter,
dated 24 September 1996, addressed
to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, the IBP[2]
transmitted to the Court, along with the records of the case, its
"Notice
and Copy of Decision," among other things, recommending the imposition
of a six-month suspension on respondent.cralaw:red
Atty. Saquilabon
was the legal counsel of complainant
in Civil Case No. 8058 ["Spouses Marcelino Buco and Cecilia Buco vs.
Perla
Compania de Seguros, Inc."], hereinafter also referred to as the "Buco"
case, and in Civil Case No. 480-G [Philip Natividad vs. Antonio Padron
and Perla Compania de Seguros"] or the "Natividad" case.cralaw:red
An adverse
decision was rendered against complainant
in Buco. Not satisfied with the decision, complainant, through
respondent,
sought relief from the Court of Appeals. On 24 November 1988, the
appeal
was dismissed for failure to file the required appeal brief.
Complainant
moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. The appellate court
reconsidered
and gave complainant a non-extendible period of fifteen days within
which
to finally submit the brief. Respondent lawyer again failed to comply
constraining
anew the Court of Appeals to dismiss, on 14 April 1989, the appeal.
Complainant's
subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. The complainant was
ultimately made to pay certain amounts to the spouses Buco.[3]
Atty. Saquilabon
was the legal counsel for herein
complainant in the Natividad case. Here, respondent filed with the
trial
court a motion for an extension to file an answer to the complaint but
he failed, nevertheless, to file the answer on time. The complainant
[the
defendant therein] was declared in default, thus allowing the plaintiff
to present his evidence ex-parte. Respondent lawyer's subsequent
compliance
was merely noted by the trial court. After, an adverse judgment was
rendered
against complainant, respondent, acting on his own, filed a notice of
appeal
with the Court of Appeals. The appeal, however, was dismissed on 10
February
1981 for non-payment of the required docket fee.cralaw:red
In the Buco case,
respondent attributed his failure
to file the appellant's brief to an oversight or negligence of the
complainant's
manager. Dionisio Quinto, at its Cabanatuan City branch. Quinto, a law
graduate, allegedly undertook the printing of the brief, which
respondent
had prepared and submitted to Quinto, and the filing thereof with the
Court
of Appeals.cralaw:red
The failure to
file an answer in the Natividad
case was said to be due to the fault of complainant's branch manager,
Bienvenido
S. Pascual, of Santiago. Isabela. According to respondent, not only did
Pascual fail to give respondent a copy of the complaint but Pascual
also
neglected to provide the docket fees required on appeal to the Court of
Appeals.cralaw:red
The IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline ["CBD"][4]
exonerated respondent in the Natividad case but concluded that there
was
gross negligence on his part in Buco, warranting a six-month suspension
from the practice of the legal profession. The report and
recommendations
of CBD were approved by the IBP.cralaw:red
We sustain the
action of IBP.cralaw:red
In Natividad, it
would indeed appear that Bienvenido
Pascual was unable to furnish respondent with a copy of the complaint.
What Pascual did was merely to refer the case and to give the summons,
as well as a copy of the complaint, to Quinto. The latter could not
even
recall the date when he delivered the complaint to respondent lawyer.
The
dismissal of the appeal due to non-payment of the docket fees, upon the
other hand, had been reconsidered by the appellate court.cralaw:red
In Buco, however,
respondent lawyer truly was
negligent in handling the case. It had behooved him to make certain
that
the appeal brief was filed on time. His excuse that he relied instead
on
an employee, albeit a branch manager, of his client is unacceptable.
The
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:
Canon 12
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not,
after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs,
let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.
Canon 18
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not
neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith
shall render him liable.
In Ford vs.
Daitol,[5]
a lawyer's failure to file brief for his client was held to amount to
inexcusable
negligence; thus:
An attorney is bound to protect his
client's
interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. [Del
Rosario
vs. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 159] A failure to file brief for his
client
certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. [People vs.
Villar,
46 SCRA 107] the respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the
duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay
litigation
and to aid in the speedy administration of justice. [People vs. Daban,
43 SCRA 185; People vs. Estocada, 43 SCRA 515].[6]
His
arrangements with Quinto did not relieve respondent
from his responsibility to ensure that his client's cause is not
unnecessarily
put to possible jeopardy. The dismissal of the appeal on 24 November
1988
for Quinto's failure to submit the appeal brief on time should have
been
enough warning for respondent not to entrust to anyone else, definitely
not to Quinto, the filing of the brief following the reconsideration of
the dismissal by the appellate court and the grant of the
non-extendible
period of fifteen days.
Atty. Saquilabon
appears to have been short of
scrupulous candor. In asking for the reconsideration of the 1989
resolution
dismissing the appeal for the second time, he did not blame Quinto but
has averred that the non-filing of the brief on the extended period
granted
to have been due to the fault of his secretary, "whose poor physical
health
forced her too render services to counsel intermittently."[7]
The
recommendation of the IBP for respondent's
suspension from the practice of law for a period of six [6] months is
more
than justified.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
Court has resolved, as it hereby
resolves, to SUSPEND Atty. Benedicto G. Saquilabon from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months from notice hereof, with a WARNING
that
a repetition of a similar misconduct will be most severely dealt with.cralaw:red
Let a copy of
this Resolution be spread on the
personal records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
Supreme
Court of the Philippines, with copies thereof furnished to the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and duly circularized to all courts in the
Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla,
Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Hermosisima, Jr., J., is on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 2.
[2]
Through Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino, Director for Bar Discipline.
[3]
CBD Report and Recommendation, p. 3.
[4]
Through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez.
[5]
250 SCRA 7; see also In re: Santiago F. Marcos, 156 SCRA 844.
[6]
At p. 12.
[7]
CBD Report and Recommendation, p. 5. |