SECOND DIVISION
EDGAR O. PEREA,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5246
March 20, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
RUBEN ALMADRO,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a complaint
for disbarment filed by Edgar O. Perea against Atty. Ruben Almadro for
gross neglect of his duties as lawyer of herein complainant.
Complainant narrates:
Respondent was his counsel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City
(Branch 99) where he (complainant Perea) is being charged with the
crime
of Frustrated Homicide. On February 26, 1996, the said RTC issued an
order
granting Atty. Almadro's motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence
within ten (10) days from said date. All the while, complainant thought
that respondent filed said demurrer and the case against him dismissed.
It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant learned that Atty.
Almadro
failed to file any demurrer. The trial court ordered the herein
complainant
to present evidence in his defense. Later, a warrant was issued for his
arrest prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail.
Complainant
suffered financially and emotionally due to respondent's neglect of his
duties. Respondent has not attended any of his hearings which led
complainant
to plead with respondent to withdraw formally as his counsel so he
could
hire another lawyer. Because of Atty. Almadro's neglect, complainant is
now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood.[1]
Respondent filed three
motions for extension of time to file comment.[2]
On November 13, 2000, the Court resolved to grant the said motions with
a warning that no further extensions shall be granted.[3]
On November 17, 2000, respondent, through the law firm Sua and Alambra,
filed a Manifestation and Motion that respondent has not yet received a
copy of the complaint hence it asked the Court to order the complainant
to furnish them a copy.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 20, 2000,
respondent through said law firm submitted an Answer[5]
to the complaint, contending that: two days after the RTC granted the
manifestation
of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he
had
finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he
stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to
its
submission in court; a few days before the deadline, herein respondent
tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts were
nowhere
to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him to believe
that
the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly
filed since it is his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts that
were already finalized and acted upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge
of
the RTC retired, as a consequence, actions on pending cases were held
in
abeyance; moreover, communications with the herein complainant had
become
rarer; thereafter, towards the end of 1997 up to the next five months
of
1998, respondent was preoccupied with the congressional elections in
Biliran
where he ran and subsequently lost; then he was offered a position at
the
Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance
Division
which he accepted; his time and attention was spent in the performance
of his demanding job at the PSE as well as in the preparation of his
testimony
before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with the "BW"
scam;
anent the case of herein complainant, he offered on several occasions
to
withdraw as one of the defense counsel of the complainant even to the
extent
of offering to return his acceptance fee which the latter however
refused;[6]
it is not true that complainant pleaded with respondent to withdraw as
his counsel, the truth being that it was complainant who refused to let
go of respondent as his counsel; also, while he is a counsel of
complainant
in the criminal case before the RTC, he was merely a collaborating
counsel,
the lead counsel being Atty. Solomon Villanueva;[7]
finally, he was actually mulling over the possible procedural steps to
take with regard to complainant's case when he received instead, a copy
of the present complaint.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 28, 2001,
the Court issued a Resolution[9]
referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation,
report and recommendation.cralaw:red
On June 13, 2001, the
IBP through Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan submitted its report,
pertinent
portions of which are quoted verbatim:
"We are not convinced
about the truth of respondent's affirmative allegations. It is clear
that
he as well as his counsels are lying. First off, the manifestation with
motion filed by respondent's counsels, Sua and Alambra is incredibly
unbelievable.
In fact, to be blunt about it, respondent's counsels were clearly lying
when they manifested that the respondent "has yet to receive a copy of
the complaint." This is an outrageous lie. The respondent's three (3)
motions never once mentioned that he had not received copy of the
complaint.
In fact, in his second motion for further extension of time to file
comment,
Atty. Almadro CLEARLY stated in the second paragraph thereof that:
‘He is in the process
of reviewing an initial draft of said comment and will need said period
of ten (10) days to complete and finalize the draft.'
"From the afore-quoted
portion of Mr. Almadro's manifestation and motion, it is obvious he
already
had a copy of the complaint. The manifestation and motion filed on his
behalf by Attys. Sua and Alambra with the Honorable Supreme Court is a
brazen and deliberate misrepresentation which deserves an
uncompromising
and vigorous condemnation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The respondent claims
he is in solo practice. How then can he honestly claim that when he
could
not find the draft of his demurrer in the magnetic computer diskette
where
he allegedly stored it, he was led "to believe that the drafts must
have
been finalized and the edited versions thereof accordingly filed." This
allegation is pure unadulterated garbage. All Mr. Almadro had to do was
check his case folder to see if a demurrer had indeed been filed. As a
solo practitioner like this representation, we can only surmise that
logically,
nothing happens or "goes down" in Mr. Almadro's office without his
knowledge
and indispensable participation. If so, how could he have been led to
believe
anything? To be sure, he would have read and signed the demurrer before
it was "accordingly filed." Being a solo practitioner no one else could
have signed that demurrer. And does Mr. Almadro expect anyone to
believe
that after finishing the draft (in his computer) he would not even
bother
to print a hard copy for him to read, edit and correct without having
to
do so from his computer monitor?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Incidentally, this
representation verified the records of the complainant's criminal case
before RTC-Branch 99, Quezon City. We came upon an Order of the
incumbent
presiding judge declaring the respondent herein in contempt of court
for
repeatedly failing to submit an explanation as ordered by the court.cralaw:red
"The undersigned is
convinced that Atty. Ruben L. Almadro's actuations reveal not only
serious
neglect or indifference to his duties as a lawyer but more gravely his
open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents.cralaw:red
"We wish to put on record
our extreme DISPLEASURE at the behavior of respondent Atty. Ruben L.
Almadro.
We strongly recommend that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for two (2) years and that he be fined Ten Thousand (PhP10,000.00)
Pesos. We likewise recommend strongly that Attys. Sua and Alambra be
ordered
to explain why they should not be held in contempt for deliberately
foisting
a deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation on the Honorable Supreme
Court
by declaring that their client had not received a copy of the complaint
when such was not true. By their misrepresentation the afore-named
counsels
have exhibited contemptible disrespect not only for the Court but also
the authority it represents."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The report was adopted
and approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline
with some modifications thus:
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules,
with modification, and considering that Atty. Ruben L. Almadro's
actuations
reveal not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties as a
lawyer
but more gravely his open disrespect for the court and the authority it
represent. Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year and FINED for Ten Thousand (P 10,000.00) Pesos. Likewise,
Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra are ordered to explain why they should not
be held in contempt for deliberately foisting a deliberate falsehood
and
misrepresentation."[11]
Respondent filed a motion
for reconsideration on September 11, 2002, this time in his own behalf,
of the above quoted IBP Board Resolution.[12]
This was denied on October 19, 2002.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are in full accord
with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As clearly stated in
the Code of Professional Responsibility -
CANON 18 --- A lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence.cralaw:red
Rule 18.03 --- A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.cralaw:red
Rule 18.04 --- A lawyer
shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.cralaw:red
It is plain from the
records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence
for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and
which
his client, herein complainant was relying on. More than that, he
failed
to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the developments
of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and without any
protection
when years later, he received summons from the trial court asking him
to
present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the trial court
issued
a warrant for his arrest.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the recent case of
Sps. Galen et al. vs. Atty. Paguirigan[14]
the Court is explicit in its pronouncement that:
"An attorney is bound
to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with
utmost
diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence on his part. 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.cralaw:red
xxx
xxx xxx
"A lawyer is expected
to be familiar with these rudiments of law and procedure and anyone who
acquires his service is entitled to not just competent service but also
whole-hearted devotion to his client's cause. It is the duty of a
lawyer
to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert
his
best efforts to protect within the bounds of law the interest of his
client.
A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
otherwise
his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for
disciplinary
action."[15]
In other cases, the
Court also held that while a lawyer may decline a person to become his
client for valid reasons, once he agrees to take up the cause of a
client,
he begins to owe fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the
trust and confidence reposed in him. As a lawyer, he must serve the
client
with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire devotion to the
interest
of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of
law legally applied.[16]
His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense
that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent's negligence
is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal believe the story of
how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously disappeared
and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to believe
that
the same was already filed in court. In his Answer, he even tried to
depict
himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually
mulling
on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding complainant's case
when instead he received a copy of this complaint for disbarment. Such
story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but is
contemptuous
as it makes a mockery of the Court.cralaw:red
Again, the Code of Professional
Responsibility is explicit on this matter:
CANON 10--- A lawyer
owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 10.01 ---A lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.cralaw:red
In Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. vs Atty. Flores,[18]
the Court, aside from citing Canon 10 above stated that "a lawyer must
be a disciple of truth." Indeed, it cannot be stressed enough how
important
it is for a lawyer as an officer of the court to observe honesty at all
times, especially before the courts.cralaw:red
Respondent would have
this Court believe a very preposterous story of how his draft
disappeared,
all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the
necessary
pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced
and
deserves stern penalty therefor.cralaw:red
The act of the IBP in
requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan Alambra to show cause why
they
should not be held in contempt of court for deliberate falsehood and
misrepresentation
in the preparation of the Answer for herein respondent is appropriate.
Records reveal that both Attys. Sua and Alambra have filed their joint
Explanation.[19]
WHEREFORE, finding respondent
Atty. Ruben Almadro guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer
and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents,
as
embodied in Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is SUSPENDED from the
practice
of law for one (1) year and FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00)
Pesos, with a WARNING that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be
dealt
with more severely.cralaw:red
Let a copy of the Resolution
be attached to the personal records of Atty. Alambra in the Office of
the
Bar Confidant and copies be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
(IBP) and all the courts in the country for their information and
guidance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let the records of herein
case be remanded to the Office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for further action on the contempt proceedings against Atty. Kenton Sua
and Atty. Alan Alambra.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2]
Id., pp. 10-26.
[3]
Id., p. 28.
[4]
Id., p. 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 39-45.
[6]
Id., pp. 39-40.
[7]
Id., p. 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., p. 40.
[9]
Id., p. 46.
[10]
Id., pp. 77-79, Report, pp. 4-6.
[11]
Id., p. 72.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., pp. 82-85.
[13]
Id., p. 89.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
A.C. No. 5558, March 7, 2002.
[15]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Tan vs. Atty. Lapak, G.R. No. 93707, 350 SCRA 74, 84 (2001); Atty.
Navarro
vs. Atty. Meneses, CBD A.C. No. 313, 285 SCRA 586, 593 (1998).
[17]
Tan vs. Atty. Lapak, supra note 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
A.C. No. 4158, 287 SCRA 449, 463 (March 12, 1998).
[19]
Rollo, p. 94. |