Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
EDUARDO
T. ABAY,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5718
December 4, 2003 - versus -
ATTY.
RAUL T.
MONTESINO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
The failure to file
an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason deserves
sanction.
Lawyers who disagree with the pursuit of an appeal should properly
withdraw
their appearance and allow their client to retain another counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case and the
Facts
In a complaint[1]
dated June 21, 2002, Eduardo T. Abay charges Atty. Raul T. Montesino
with
gross negligence, gross incompetence and evident bad faith, in
violation
of his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant avers that
the Negros Institute of Technology (NIT), of which he is a stockholder,
hired respondent as counsel in an action for "Cancellation of Title of
Ownership, Recovery of Ownership and Possession and Damages with
Preliminary
Injunction" against the estate of Vicente T. Galo. The matter was
docketed
as Civil Case No. 1329 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod
City
(Branch 45).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 27, 1995, the
RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the civil case. Respondent's Motion
for Reconsideration of the judgment of dismissal was denied by the
trial
court in its Order dated November 3, 1995. Although respondent filed a
Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA), he thereafter failed
to
submit an appellant's brief. Consequently, in a Resolution dated March
19, 1999, the CA dismissed the appeal with the following admonition:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"We made a warning in
our Resolution dated as early as October 20, 1998 that no further
extension
will be entertained. Precisely because of non-submission of the Brief,
we directed, on January 8, 1998, the dismissal of the appeal. This is
not
to mention the fact that a total of 120 days extension, over and above
the 45-day reglementary period, had already been granted. This brings
us
to the February 9, 1999 ruling by the Supreme Court (A.M. No.
99-2-03-SC)
giving the Solicitor General a limited time of 60 days and 90 days
within
which to submit his comment or appellee's brief, with a warning that no
further extension will be granted. This precisely applies to a First
Motion
for Extension. The period can even be shortened, in cases of extreme
urgency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"We cannot see any reason
why the court's admonishing for a limited time to do compliance does
not
apply to this case now before Us."[2]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant attributes
the failure of respondent to submit the brief to the latter's gross
negligence
and evident bad faith. Respondent allegedly abandoned the appeal
without
the knowledge and consent of the NIT. Worse, he supposedly never told
the
Institute that its appeal had already been dismissed. Complainant thus
prayed that respondent be duly sanctioned with disbarment.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment 4 dated
October 29, 2002, respondent denied that he was negligent in his duty
as
counsel of NIT. According to him, while Civil Case No. 1329 was pending
appeal, he discovered that the property that it was seeking to recover
had been the subject of another case, Civil Case No. 6017, which was
for
"Annulment of Sale, Deed of Donation, Cancellation of Titles and
Damages."
The latter case was a result of the overlapping transfers of rights
effected
by the heirs of Vicente Galo through (1) a Contract of Sale executed on
April 12, 1985[5]
in favor of Floserfina Grandea[6]
and (2) a Contract of Mortgage executed on September 3, 1985 in favor
of
Ludovico Hilado.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Believing that the heirs
of Vicente Galo had already validly transferred to another party the
ownership
of the property that the NIT was seeking to recover, respondent felt
that
to pursue the appeal would be "dilatory, expensive, frivolous and
taxing
[to] the precious time of the [CA]."[8]
Thus, he deemed it wise to advise the stockholders of the NIT to
abandon
the appeal and instead "file appropriate Complaint(s) against
Floserfina
Grandea of Bacolod City and Ludovico Hilado of Silay City to recover
the
ownership and possession of the NIT's claimed properties."[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent avers that
complainant was "unjustly adamant in his demand to continue with the
appeal
despite said legal advice." However, because he sincerely felt that the
"best way to protect the rights of NIT was to file appropriate
complaint(s)
against Grandea and Hilado, he allowed the period to submit NIT's
Appellant's Brief to lapse."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, respondent
maintains that despite the fact that the NIT did not pay his legal fees
or reimburse him for his expenses, he still faithfully performed his
duty
during the entire time he served as its counsel. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Resolution[11]
dated January 20, 2003, the Court referred this case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Report of the
Investigating
Commissioner
In her April 24, 2003
Report,[12]
Investigating IBP Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan found respondent
guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to Commissioner
San Juan, respondent was not able to justify his failure to file the
brief.
She explained that "if respondent actually believed that it was futile
to pursue the appeal, why did he request from the Court of Appeals
numerous
extensions of time to file the same within the given extension periods?
Also, it should be noted that respondent admits that after he advised
NIT
and herein complainant about the futility of pursuing the appeal, the
latter
expressed the wish to continue with [the appeal]. At the very least,
respondent
should have given due importance to the decision of his client to avail
of a legal remedy available to it under the legal system."[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
She recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
months,
with a warning that a harsher penalty would be meted out for a similar
infraction in the future.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Recommendation of
the IBP Board of Governors
On June 21, 2003, the
Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No. XV-2003-339 15
adopting
the Report and Recommendation of the investigating commissioner."[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's Ruling
We agree with the findings
and recommendation of the IBP.cralaw:red
Administrative Liability
of Respondent
The legal profession
is invested with public trust.[17]
Its goal is to render public service and secure justice for those who
seek
its aid.[18]
Thus, the practice of law is considered a privilege, not a right,
bestowed
by the State on those who show that they possess and continue to
possess
the legal qualifications required for the conferment of such privilege.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Verily, lawyers are
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency
and of morality — which includes honesty, integrity and fair dealing.[20]
They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal
profession,
the courts and their clients in accordance with the values and norms of
the legal profession, as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Any conduct found wanting in these considerations, whether in their
professional
or private capacity, shall subject them to disciplinary action. In the
present case, the failure of respondent to file the appellant's brief
was
a clear violation of his professional duty to his client. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates lawyers to serve their clients with competence
and diligence.[21]
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 specifically provide:
"Rule 18.03
— A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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."
It must be noted that
respondent
and complainant disagreed on the legal course to be taken regarding the
appealed case. The former strongly advised the latter to abandon the
appeal
and to consider the other available remedies. Complainant, on the other
hand, wanted to pursue it. Feeling that he was "unjustly adamant" in
wanting
to do so, respondent — contrary to the desire of the former — deemed it
wise to abandon the appeal without informing his client.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not filing an
appellant's
brief is prejudicial because, as happened in this case, such failure
could
result in the dismissal of the appeal.[22]
The conduct of respondent shows that he failed to exercise due
diligence,
and that he had a cavalier attitude towards the cause of his client.
The
abandonment by the former of the latter's cause made him unworthy of
the
trust that his client reposed in him. Even if respondent was "honestly
and sincerely" protecting the interests of complainant, the former
still
had no right to waive the appeal without the latter's knowledge and
consent.
If indeed respondent felt unable or unwilling to continue his
retainership,
he should have properly withdrawn his appearance and allowed the client
to appoint another lawyer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the appellate
court noted that respondent failed to file the appellant's brief
despite
being granted several extensions of time to file it. He therefore
violated
Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates
that
"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."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We emphasize that all
lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause.[23]
Regardless of their personal views, they must present every remedy or
defense
within the authority of the law in support of that cause.[24]
We have said in Ong v. Atty. Grijaldo:[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Once a lawyer agrees
to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion
the
latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.
Otherwise
stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the 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.
This
simply means that 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. If much is
demanded
from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law
carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also
to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his
duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his
client;
he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps
maintain
the respect of the community to the legal profession."[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, Atty. Raul
T. Montesino is found guilty of negligence and is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for six months, effective upon receipt of this
Decision.
He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be
dealt
with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A copy of this Decision
shall be entered in the record of respondent as attorney. Further, let
copies of this Decision be served on the IBP as well as on the court
administrator,
who is directed to circulate these to all the courts in the country for
their information and guidance. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Complaint, p. 5; rollo, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 33–47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
See Annex "4" of respondent's Comment; rollo, p. 67.
[6]
Comment, p. 8; id., p. 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., pp. 9 & 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., pp. 8 & 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., pp. 9 & 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, p. 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., pp. 119–131.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Report and Recommendation dated April 24, 2003, pp. 12–13; rollo, pp.
130–131.
[14]
Id., pp. 13 & 131.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rollo, p. 118.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People v. Santocildes Jr., 378 Phil. 943, December 21, 1999; In the
Matter
of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Ozaeta,
Romulo, etc.," 92 SCRA 1, July 30, 1979.
[18]
Docena v. Limon, 356 Phil. 570, September 10, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Eustaquio v. Atty. Rimorin, AC No. 5081, March 24, 2003; Sebastian v.
Atty.
Calis, 372 Phil. 673, September 9, 1999; Arrieta v. Llosa, 346 Phil.
932,
November 28, 1997.
[20]
Tapucar v. Atty. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66, July 30, 1998; Maligsa v. Atty.
Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912, May 14, 1997.
[21]
Canon 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Torres v. Atty. Orden, 386 Phil. 216, April 6, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Reontoy v. Atty. Ibadlit, 285 SCRA 88, January 28, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
AC No. 4724, April 30, 2003; citing Ramos v. Atty. Jacoba, 418 Phil.
346,
September 27, 2001.
[26]
Id., p. 8, per curiam, J.; id., p. 351, per Mendoza, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|