SECOND DIVISION
PABLITO
SANTOS,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5085
February 6, 2003 -versus-
ATTY.
ALVARO
BERNABE
LAZARO,
Respondent. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
R E S O L U T I
O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
BELLOSILLO,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Alvaro Bernabe
Lazaro, a member of the Philippine Bar and respondent herein, is
charged
administratively with "inexcusable neglect of duties as a lawyer to a
client-relative."[1]
According to complainant Pablito Santos, the charge arose from
respondent’s
failure to file a "memorandum/brief" resulting in his being deprived of
his rights over a parcel of land located at F. Varona St., Tondo,
Manila.
Complainant also alleged other matters indicative of further
misconduct,
such as respondent’s repeated demands for unconscionable amounts of
money
despite awareness of complainant’s grinding poverty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Specifically, complainant
averred that he was a defendant in an ejectment case filed by a certain
Alfredo dela Rosa in representation of his minor children Mila Nelia,
Ofelia,
Rochelle and Allan, all surnamed dela Rosa, before the Metropolitan
Trial
Court of Manila.[2]
The complaint was for complainant’s ejectment from a parcel of land at
F. Varona St., Tondo, Manila, after he refused to pay rent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subsequently, respondent
entered his appearance as counsel for herein complainant, as defendant
in the MeTC, after he paid respondent an acceptance fee of P20,000.00.
Complainant further alleged that while the case was pending thereat
respondent
demanded and was paid another P30,000.00. However, judgment was
rendered
ordering complainant to vacate the premises and to pay plaintiffs
therein
P87,000.00 as back rentals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Feeling aggrieved, complainant
appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila.[3]
For the appeal, complainant gave respondent another P30,000.00 for his
professional services. After the MeTC rendered judgment ordering
complainant’s
immediate eviction from the premises, the National Housing Authority
awarded
him the property and a transfer certificate of title was issued in his
favor.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the part of the plaintiffs
in the MeTC, they moved for the immediate execution of the judgment
being
appealed from. On 17 March 1997 the Regional Trial Court issued an
Order
directing defendant-appellant Pablito Santos to file his
"memorandum/brief"
within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Several months later,
respondent was reproached by the RTC for not complying with its 17
March
1997 Order. Respondent had to plead that he be given another chance to
file his appellant’s memorandum as his "attention was focused on
matters
pertaining on (sic) the submission of pleadings thereafter needed to be
filed in reply to Plaintiff’s manifestation and motion." His arguments
however were not sustained.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 18 August 1997 the
RTC granted the motion for a writ of execution upon finding that
defendant
therein, complainant herein, did not put up a supersedeas bond to stay
the execution of the judgment. In its Order, the RTC also disregarded
complainant’s
opposition to resolve the motion and considered counsel’s excuse for
not
filing his memorandum as a "feeble attempt to extricate himself (herein
respondent Lazaro) from his blunder which is not excusable."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent denied the
charges against him. He argued that his failure to file the
"memorandum/brief"
was "not deliberate as he is morally and legally convinced that he may
be able to present his client’s valid cause or claim over the disputed
property in a hearing called for the purpose." He alleged that he could
have orally argued complainant’s case before the trial court had he
been
given the opportunity to do so. According to him, complainant rudely
terminated
his services even before he could explain his legal strategy for
winning
the appeal. Moreover, complainant’s allegation that he milked him dry
was
far from the truth since complainant actually gave him only P10,000.00
contrary to their agreement that he would be remunerated with
P30,000.00
for his legal services. Lastly, respondent claimed that complainant
tried
to extort P200,000.00 from him in exchange for the withdrawal of his
disbarment
complaint against him.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court referred
the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation,
report and recommendation.[7]
On 5 August 2002 the IBP submitted its Report finding respondent guilty
of negligence and recommending that he be suspended from the practice
of
law for a period of six (6) months.[8]
In justifying its recommendation, the IBP completely relied on the
findings
of the trial court -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"From the facts obtaining
and the evidence presented, we find the Order dated 18 August 1997 of
the
Honorable Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
31, says it all with regard to the inexcusable negligence committed by
respondent in handling the case of complainant, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
‘The record reveals
that defendant’s counsel failed to file any motion for extension to
file
his memorandum/brief. This being the case, defendant’s counsel was of
the
thinking that he could get out of his predicament by pleading that his
attention was focused on matters pertaining ‘on the submission of
pleadings
thereafter needed to be filed in reply to plaintiffs’ manifestation and
motion,’ thus his failure to file defendant’s memorandum/brief.
However,
this is farthest from the truth because he already knew on March 31,
1997
that he was required to file his memorandum/brief not later than thirty
(30) days from that date. The foregoing narration does not speak well
of
the stance taken by defendant’s counsel.’"[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A thorough and exhaustive
study of the complaint as well as the comment thereto argues strongly
for
the adoption and approval of the IBP Report. Indeed, complainant would
not have undergone the travails of losing his property had respondent
exercised
the ordinary diligence of a member of the Bar.cralaw:red
Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that negligence of
lawyers
in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall
render
them liable. It is a basic postulate in legal ethics that when a lawyer
takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence
in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of
vigilance
and attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer
unworthy
of the trust reposed upon him by his client and makes him answerable to
him, to the courts and to society.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The acts of respondent
in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional
ethics.
By neglecting to file the "memorandum/brief," respondent set off a
chain
of events which eventually ended in the demolition of a "34-meter
structure
which complainant and four other families call home."[10]
His explanation that his "attention was focused on matters pertaining
on
(sic) the submission of pleadings thereafter needed to be filed in
reply
to plaintiff’s manifestation and motion" is too ludicrous to be
believed.
His stance, to quote the trial court, was but "a feeble attempt to
extricate
himself from his blunder which is not excusable."
Respondent’s failure
to exercise due diligence in attending to the interest of complainant
caused
the latter material prejudice. As a lawyer, respondent was wanting in
the
exercise of reasonable care demanded of every member of the Bar; his
measure
of diligence is several notches below the standard required of his
office.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro is found GUILTY of negligence in protecting
the interest of his client, complainant Pablito Santos, in Civil Case
No.
97-82452, of the RTC of Manila, and is accordingly SUSPENDED from the
practice
of law, not for six (6) months as recommended by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, but for one (1)
year
effective from date of his receipt of this Resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let a copy of this Resolution
be attached to the personal record of Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro in
the
Bar Confidant’s Office, another copy furnished the Integrated Bar of
the
Philippines, and copies thereof circulated in all the courts of the
country.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Atty. Alvaro
Bernabe Lazaro is DIRECTED to inform this Court and the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines of the date of his receipt of this Resolution.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Mendoza, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp.1-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Docketed as Civil Case No. 147286-CV, MeTC-Br. 3, Manila.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Docketed as Civil Case No. 97-82452.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Order penned by Judge Wilfredo D. Reyes, RTC-Br. 31, Manila; Id. at
6-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, pp. 14-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id at 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 83-87.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 86.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 70.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |