January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 7565 : January 28, 2009] MILA C. ARCHE V. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR. :
[A.C. No. 7565 : January 28, 2009]
MILA C. ARCHE V. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 28 January 2009:
A.C. No. 7565 (Mila C. Arche v. Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr.).- In a Letter Complaint dated 24 May 2007,[1] complainant Mila C. Arche charged respondent Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr. with violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and that his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Arche alleges that sometime in 1995, she engaged the services of respondent in the civil case for unlawful detainer entitled, Mila Arche v. Sps. Arneldo and Nelly Del Castillo docketed as Civil Case No. 948 and filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur. However, in an Order dated 10 October 1995, the MCTC granted the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants on the ground that the case should be one for rescission of contract which is not within the MCTC's jurisdiction to resolve.[2] Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in November 1995 but failed to file the required memorandum.
Sometime in 1996, the defendants in the unlawful detainer case retaliated by filing against Arche and one Linda Cledera a complaint for specific performance involving the same property subject of the unlawful detainer case. Entitled Sps. Arneldo and Nelly Del Castillo v. Mila C. Arche and Linda B. Cledera, the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-3549 of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Br. 23. Respondent acted as counsel for Arche and Cledera. Respondent however failed to submit the Formal Offer of Evidence despite the grant of his motion for extension to file the same. Eventually, the RTC rendered its Decision on 31 July 2000 in favor of the plaintiffs and against Arche and Cledera.[3] Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to reconsider the decision on 25 August 2000.[4]
Arche hired another lawyer who filed a notice of appeal and prepared and submitted her Appellant's Brief before the Court of Appeals (CA).[5] On 25 October 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC with the modification deleting the award of attorney's fees. Arche filed a motion for reconsideration which is still pending.
Arche claims that respondent's negligence resulted in her losing her residential house and lot subject of the two civil cases.
Respondent filed his Comment dated 10 October 2007 denying the charge.[6] He avers that after the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case, he fded a notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending before the RTC, defendants filed the complaint for specific performance. Since the two cases involved the same transaction and the testimonial and documentary evidence to be presented would be the same, and considering Arche's financial resources, it was agreed that attention would be focused on the case for specific performance. Respondent claims that in the case for specific performance, he fought for defendants with all vigor and diligence and even spent tedious hours briefing them on the nature and intricacies of their respective testimonies before each trial date without charging them any fee. After trial was terminated, respondent advised his clients to see him for the preparation and filing of the formal offer of exhibits which were numerous and even required translation of certain documents into the official language of the court. However, both clients were remiss in conferring with respondent causing the delay in the filing of the formal offer.
The RTC eventually rendered its decision in the specific performance case without defendant's formal offer of evidence. Defendants, without prior notice to respondent, immediately secured the services of another lawyer who promptly filed a notice of appeal. Considering that he was still counsel on record for the defendants, respondent felt it was his duty to withdraw the notice of appeal hastily filed by the new counsel so he could file a motion for reconsideration of the decision. Before the decision could attain finality, respondent filed the Omnibus Motion asking the withdrawal of the notice of appeal filed by defendants' new counsel and seeking reconsideration of the decision and admission of the attached formal offer of exhibits. The new counsel however blocked and opposed the Omnibus Motion. The RTC then gave due course to the notice of appeal and the records of the case were forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.7 The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline set the mandatory conference on 25 April 2008. On said date, only Arche, who traveled all the way from Naga City, appeared. The mandatory conference was terminated and the parties were required to submit their position papers. Arche filed her position paper of 15 May 2008, while respondent failed to file his.
In the Report and Recommendation dated 22 May 2008, IBP Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag recommended that respondent be suspended for three (3) months from the practice of law. The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XVIII-2008-333 dated 17 July 2008 which reads:
The IBP Commissioner found respondent deserving of a sanction. He noted that in the case for specific performance, respondent was given additional time to file the formal offer of evidence but he failed to do so. Respondent attached the formal offer in his Omnibus Motion dated 24 August 2000 but by then, he was no longer counsel of record for Arche and Cledera who had already hired a new lawyer. Thus, the RTC had no opportunity to see the exhibits which, had they been viewed and considered by the court, could have resulted in a different resolution.
The IBP Commissioner adds that an attorney assumes, from the moment he takes his oath of office, important duties and heavy responsibilities requiring the highest degree of trust and confidence. Consequently, when he undertakes the prosecution or defense of a cause, the client has a right to demand of him that he possess the requisite learning and skill, a right which he guarantees with absolute good faith.8 There is no justification for an attorney's failure to prepare the necessary pleadings in connection with the case which he has undertaken to prosecute. The reglementary periods provided for under the Rules of Court for the filing of pleadings are considered ample for the practitioner's purposes. Where the attorney finds it impossible to prepare an adequate pleading, he can always move for an extension of time. This respondent did by filing a motion for extension. Unfortunately, no such formal offer of exhibits was received by the court even during the extended period. Thus, the case was submitted for decision sans defendants' formal offer of exhibits.
The IBP Commissioner noted that respondent failed to file his position paper when required to do so. However, the records would show that respondent submitted his position paper, although it was filed late. The IBP made its Report and Recommendation on 22 May 2008, while respondent's Position Paper is dated 24 May 2008 and was received by the IBP only on 27 June 2008. In his position paper, respondent reiterates his arguments in his comment to show he was not negligent in his duty as former counsel to Arche. He insists that Arche and her co-defendant in the case for specific performance were remiss in their obligation to confer with him on the preparation of the formal offer of exhibits and such failure caused the delay in its submission. Arche and her co-defendant, through their new counsel, also blocked respondent's efforts to remedy the situation by filing the omnibus motion with the attached formal offer of evidence. Thus, the trial court was not able to pass upon the merits of the omnibus motion and. the matter was also not raised as an issue before the CA on appeal.
Failure to timely file a pleading is by itself an act of negligence on the part of the lawyer. From the records, respondent was aware of the period to file the formal offer of evidence and had even requested additional time to file the same which was granted. Respondent failed to file the pleading within the extended period and even imputed the fault on his clients for failing to confer with him to prepare the formal offer of evidence. Complainant and her co-defendant have the responsibility of communicating with their counsel. However, respondent being the counsel, more than the client, should have been mindful of the importance of complying with the reglementary period for filing of pleadings and should not have just relied on his clients to undertake the translation of certain documents and preparation of exhibits. He should bear in mind that the client is bound by the action of his counsel and any adverse consequences as a result of the negligence or mistake of the lawyer, such as the rendition of an unfavorable decision, is borne by the client.[10]
We thus agree with the recommendation with the IBP that respondent be found administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and impose upon him the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months, effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondent's personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all the courts in the land.
A.C. No. 7565 (Mila C. Arche v. Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr.).- In a Letter Complaint dated 24 May 2007,[1] complainant Mila C. Arche charged respondent Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr. with violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and that his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Arche alleges that sometime in 1995, she engaged the services of respondent in the civil case for unlawful detainer entitled, Mila Arche v. Sps. Arneldo and Nelly Del Castillo docketed as Civil Case No. 948 and filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur. However, in an Order dated 10 October 1995, the MCTC granted the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants on the ground that the case should be one for rescission of contract which is not within the MCTC's jurisdiction to resolve.[2] Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in November 1995 but failed to file the required memorandum.
Sometime in 1996, the defendants in the unlawful detainer case retaliated by filing against Arche and one Linda Cledera a complaint for specific performance involving the same property subject of the unlawful detainer case. Entitled Sps. Arneldo and Nelly Del Castillo v. Mila C. Arche and Linda B. Cledera, the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-3549 of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Br. 23. Respondent acted as counsel for Arche and Cledera. Respondent however failed to submit the Formal Offer of Evidence despite the grant of his motion for extension to file the same. Eventually, the RTC rendered its Decision on 31 July 2000 in favor of the plaintiffs and against Arche and Cledera.[3] Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to reconsider the decision on 25 August 2000.[4]
Arche hired another lawyer who filed a notice of appeal and prepared and submitted her Appellant's Brief before the Court of Appeals (CA).[5] On 25 October 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC with the modification deleting the award of attorney's fees. Arche filed a motion for reconsideration which is still pending.
Arche claims that respondent's negligence resulted in her losing her residential house and lot subject of the two civil cases.
Respondent filed his Comment dated 10 October 2007 denying the charge.[6] He avers that after the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case, he fded a notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending before the RTC, defendants filed the complaint for specific performance. Since the two cases involved the same transaction and the testimonial and documentary evidence to be presented would be the same, and considering Arche's financial resources, it was agreed that attention would be focused on the case for specific performance. Respondent claims that in the case for specific performance, he fought for defendants with all vigor and diligence and even spent tedious hours briefing them on the nature and intricacies of their respective testimonies before each trial date without charging them any fee. After trial was terminated, respondent advised his clients to see him for the preparation and filing of the formal offer of exhibits which were numerous and even required translation of certain documents into the official language of the court. However, both clients were remiss in conferring with respondent causing the delay in the filing of the formal offer.
The RTC eventually rendered its decision in the specific performance case without defendant's formal offer of evidence. Defendants, without prior notice to respondent, immediately secured the services of another lawyer who promptly filed a notice of appeal. Considering that he was still counsel on record for the defendants, respondent felt it was his duty to withdraw the notice of appeal hastily filed by the new counsel so he could file a motion for reconsideration of the decision. Before the decision could attain finality, respondent filed the Omnibus Motion asking the withdrawal of the notice of appeal filed by defendants' new counsel and seeking reconsideration of the decision and admission of the attached formal offer of exhibits. The new counsel however blocked and opposed the Omnibus Motion. The RTC then gave due course to the notice of appeal and the records of the case were forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.7 The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline set the mandatory conference on 25 April 2008. On said date, only Arche, who traveled all the way from Naga City, appeared. The mandatory conference was terminated and the parties were required to submit their position papers. Arche filed her position paper of 15 May 2008, while respondent failed to file his.
In the Report and Recommendation dated 22 May 2008, IBP Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag recommended that respondent be suspended for three (3) months from the practice of law. The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XVIII-2008-333 dated 17 July 2008 which reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitied case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A;" and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with Warning that repetition of the similar action will merit a higher sanction.
The IBP Commissioner found respondent deserving of a sanction. He noted that in the case for specific performance, respondent was given additional time to file the formal offer of evidence but he failed to do so. Respondent attached the formal offer in his Omnibus Motion dated 24 August 2000 but by then, he was no longer counsel of record for Arche and Cledera who had already hired a new lawyer. Thus, the RTC had no opportunity to see the exhibits which, had they been viewed and considered by the court, could have resulted in a different resolution.
The IBP Commissioner adds that an attorney assumes, from the moment he takes his oath of office, important duties and heavy responsibilities requiring the highest degree of trust and confidence. Consequently, when he undertakes the prosecution or defense of a cause, the client has a right to demand of him that he possess the requisite learning and skill, a right which he guarantees with absolute good faith.8 There is no justification for an attorney's failure to prepare the necessary pleadings in connection with the case which he has undertaken to prosecute. The reglementary periods provided for under the Rules of Court for the filing of pleadings are considered ample for the practitioner's purposes. Where the attorney finds it impossible to prepare an adequate pleading, he can always move for an extension of time. This respondent did by filing a motion for extension. Unfortunately, no such formal offer of exhibits was received by the court even during the extended period. Thus, the case was submitted for decision sans defendants' formal offer of exhibits.
The IBP Commissioner noted that respondent failed to file his position paper when required to do so. However, the records would show that respondent submitted his position paper, although it was filed late. The IBP made its Report and Recommendation on 22 May 2008, while respondent's Position Paper is dated 24 May 2008 and was received by the IBP only on 27 June 2008. In his position paper, respondent reiterates his arguments in his comment to show he was not negligent in his duty as former counsel to Arche. He insists that Arche and her co-defendant in the case for specific performance were remiss in their obligation to confer with him on the preparation of the formal offer of exhibits and such failure caused the delay in its submission. Arche and her co-defendant, through their new counsel, also blocked respondent's efforts to remedy the situation by filing the omnibus motion with the attached formal offer of evidence. Thus, the trial court was not able to pass upon the merits of the omnibus motion and. the matter was also not raised as an issue before the CA on appeal.
Failure to timely file a pleading is by itself an act of negligence on the part of the lawyer. From the records, respondent was aware of the period to file the formal offer of evidence and had even requested additional time to file the same which was granted. Respondent failed to file the pleading within the extended period and even imputed the fault on his clients for failing to confer with him to prepare the formal offer of evidence. Complainant and her co-defendant have the responsibility of communicating with their counsel. However, respondent being the counsel, more than the client, should have been mindful of the importance of complying with the reglementary period for filing of pleadings and should not have just relied on his clients to undertake the translation of certain documents and preparation of exhibits. He should bear in mind that the client is bound by the action of his counsel and any adverse consequences as a result of the negligence or mistake of the lawyer, such as the rendition of an unfavorable decision, is borne by the client.[10]
We thus agree with the recommendation with the IBP that respondent be found administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and impose upon him the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months, effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondent's personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all the courts in the land.
Very truly yours.
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[l] Rollo, pp. 2-5.
[2] Id. at 6.
[3] Id. at 7-19.
[4] Id. at 31-43.
[5] Id. at 20-21.
[6] Id. at 107-109.
[7] Id. at 113.
[8] Citing Moorman v. Wood, 117 Ind. HA; Savings Bank v. Ward, 300 U.S. 195.
[9] See Jardin v. Atty. Villar, Jr., 457 Phi!. 1, 10 (2003), citing Aromin v. Boncavil, A.C. No. 5135, 22 September 1999.315 SCRA 1; Perta Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Atty. Saquilabon, 337 Phil. 555 (1997); In Re: Atty. David Briones, 415 Phil. 203 (2001); Sps. Galemv. Paguirigan, 428 Phil. 591 (2002); and Sps. Rabanal v. Atty. Tugade, 432 Phil. 1064 (2002)
[10] Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad. at el., 486 Phil. 574, 585 (2004).
