March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 6951 : March 18, 2009] MA. DOLORES C. ENDIQUE V. ATTY. NARCISO HABACON:
[A.C. No. 6951 : March 18, 2009]
MA. DOLORES C. ENDIQUE V. ATTY. NARCISO HABACON
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 18 March 2009
A.C. No. 6951: MA. DOLORES C. ENDIQUE v. ATTY. NARCISO HABACON
Ma. Dolores C. Endique (complainant) filed a verified complaint charging respondent Atty. Narciso Habacon (respondent) with willful neglect of duty, misrepresentation, and conflict of interest. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to file the appeal memorandum in the complainant's unlawful detainer suit; that respondent failed to immediately file the complaint for reivindicatoria; and that respondent filed and prosecuted a wrong action.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner Randall C. Tabayoyong (Investigating Commissioner) of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP submitted his Report and Recommendation dated 23 August 2007.
On the alleged failure to file the appeal memorandum, the Investigating Commissioner opined that while it was respondent's duty to file an appeal memorandum in complainant's behalf, complainant relieved him of such duty when she expressly agreed to file instead a reivindicatoria action.
As regards the filing of a reivindicatoria action, the Investigating Commissioner found that complainant failed to adduce any evidence to prove her alleged agreement with respondent for the latter to pay the filing fee for such action. The fact that the filing fee of the reivindicatoria action had already increased when complainant decided to pay the same could not also be imputed to respondent.
The Investigating Commissioner likewise found no basis for the charges of misrepresentation and conflict of interest.
Respondent admitted that he did not have the evidence to support the cause of action alleged in the unlawful detainer complaint and that the occupants of complainant's property were indeed in prior possession of the same due to some other legal cause and could not have been occupying the property by mere tolerance. The Investigating Commissioner opined that, with this admission by respondent, it was clear that the filing of an improper remedy was due to respondent's lack of diligence in handling the case. Thus, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent failed to abide by Canon 18 and Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in advising complainant to pursue a wrong remedy.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be sternly admonished for his lack of diligence in handling complainant's case against the occupants of her property with a warning that a repetition of the same ethical violation would merit a stiffer penalty. Based on the receipts submitted by complainant as proof of payment of legal fees to respondent, the Investigating Commissioner further recommended that respondent restitute to complainant the amount of P30,500 for the unnecessary legal expense she incurred in filing and prosecuting the wrong remedy.
The IBP Board of Governors issued on 28 September 2007 Resolution No. XVIII-2007-142 adopting and approving with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner by suspending respondent from the practice of law for six months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely. Respondent was further ordered to restitute to complainant the amount of P30,500 within 30 days from receipt of the notice. The IBP Board of Governors found that respondent failed to abide by the provisions of Canon 18 and Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by his lack of diligence in handling complainant's case.
On 23 December 2008, respondent filed a Manifestation/Compliance with Motion manifesting that, in compliance with the IBP resolution, he did not practice law from 2 January 2008 up to 2 July 2008 and returned in active practice of his profession during the second week of July 2008. In addition, he paid and remitted to complainant the sum of P30,500 in cash representing full and complete refund of payment of attorney's fees. Thus, respondent prays that this case be considered closed and terminated.
Nonetheless, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), upon receipt of respondent's manifestation/compliance, submitted a report recommending that respondent be required to serve his suspension only upon effectivity of his suspension as mandated by the Court and not by the IBP and that respondent be required to show proof of his compliance by submitting certifications from the IBP and competent courts stating that he has in fact ceased and desisted from the practice of law during his suspension.
It is clear that respondent is not questioning the IBP resolution and he has, in fact, partly complied therewith by remitting to complainant the amount of P3Q,5QG. Furthermore, respondent, on his own, did not practice law for six months as stated in his Manifestation/Compliance.
The Court finds no reversible error in the IBP resolution and hereby approves its recommendation. However, we agree with the OBC that no decision or resolution of the IBP may become final and executory simply by the lapse of the 15-day period, even if no petition is filed with this Court assailing the IBP resolution or decision. Such decision takes effect only upon its confirmation or modification by the Court. This is because the inherent power to discipline members of the Bar belongs to the Court and not the IBP.[1] The lifting of a lawyer's suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the Court's decision or resolution, and an order from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to enable him to resume the practice of his profession.[2]
WHEREFORE, we ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the Resolution No. XVIII-2007-142 dated 28 September 2007. Considering, however, that respondent has already returned to complainant the P30,500, the recommended penalty of SUSPENSION for six (6) months from the practice of law is sustained. Respondent is warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is likewise directed to submit certifications from the IBP and competent courts that he has indeed ceased and desisted from the practice of law during his suspension which shall commence from his receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Additional Member [per S.O. No. 588], Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, and Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona and Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Members, First Division, this 18th day of March, 2009.
A.C. No. 6951: MA. DOLORES C. ENDIQUE v. ATTY. NARCISO HABACON
Ma. Dolores C. Endique (complainant) filed a verified complaint charging respondent Atty. Narciso Habacon (respondent) with willful neglect of duty, misrepresentation, and conflict of interest. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to file the appeal memorandum in the complainant's unlawful detainer suit; that respondent failed to immediately file the complaint for reivindicatoria; and that respondent filed and prosecuted a wrong action.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner Randall C. Tabayoyong (Investigating Commissioner) of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP submitted his Report and Recommendation dated 23 August 2007.
On the alleged failure to file the appeal memorandum, the Investigating Commissioner opined that while it was respondent's duty to file an appeal memorandum in complainant's behalf, complainant relieved him of such duty when she expressly agreed to file instead a reivindicatoria action.
As regards the filing of a reivindicatoria action, the Investigating Commissioner found that complainant failed to adduce any evidence to prove her alleged agreement with respondent for the latter to pay the filing fee for such action. The fact that the filing fee of the reivindicatoria action had already increased when complainant decided to pay the same could not also be imputed to respondent.
The Investigating Commissioner likewise found no basis for the charges of misrepresentation and conflict of interest.
Respondent admitted that he did not have the evidence to support the cause of action alleged in the unlawful detainer complaint and that the occupants of complainant's property were indeed in prior possession of the same due to some other legal cause and could not have been occupying the property by mere tolerance. The Investigating Commissioner opined that, with this admission by respondent, it was clear that the filing of an improper remedy was due to respondent's lack of diligence in handling the case. Thus, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent failed to abide by Canon 18 and Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in advising complainant to pursue a wrong remedy.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be sternly admonished for his lack of diligence in handling complainant's case against the occupants of her property with a warning that a repetition of the same ethical violation would merit a stiffer penalty. Based on the receipts submitted by complainant as proof of payment of legal fees to respondent, the Investigating Commissioner further recommended that respondent restitute to complainant the amount of P30,500 for the unnecessary legal expense she incurred in filing and prosecuting the wrong remedy.
The IBP Board of Governors issued on 28 September 2007 Resolution No. XVIII-2007-142 adopting and approving with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner by suspending respondent from the practice of law for six months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely. Respondent was further ordered to restitute to complainant the amount of P30,500 within 30 days from receipt of the notice. The IBP Board of Governors found that respondent failed to abide by the provisions of Canon 18 and Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by his lack of diligence in handling complainant's case.
On 23 December 2008, respondent filed a Manifestation/Compliance with Motion manifesting that, in compliance with the IBP resolution, he did not practice law from 2 January 2008 up to 2 July 2008 and returned in active practice of his profession during the second week of July 2008. In addition, he paid and remitted to complainant the sum of P30,500 in cash representing full and complete refund of payment of attorney's fees. Thus, respondent prays that this case be considered closed and terminated.
Nonetheless, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), upon receipt of respondent's manifestation/compliance, submitted a report recommending that respondent be required to serve his suspension only upon effectivity of his suspension as mandated by the Court and not by the IBP and that respondent be required to show proof of his compliance by submitting certifications from the IBP and competent courts stating that he has in fact ceased and desisted from the practice of law during his suspension.
It is clear that respondent is not questioning the IBP resolution and he has, in fact, partly complied therewith by remitting to complainant the amount of P3Q,5QG. Furthermore, respondent, on his own, did not practice law for six months as stated in his Manifestation/Compliance.
The Court finds no reversible error in the IBP resolution and hereby approves its recommendation. However, we agree with the OBC that no decision or resolution of the IBP may become final and executory simply by the lapse of the 15-day period, even if no petition is filed with this Court assailing the IBP resolution or decision. Such decision takes effect only upon its confirmation or modification by the Court. This is because the inherent power to discipline members of the Bar belongs to the Court and not the IBP.[1] The lifting of a lawyer's suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the Court's decision or resolution, and an order from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to enable him to resume the practice of his profession.[2]
WHEREFORE, we ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the Resolution No. XVIII-2007-142 dated 28 September 2007. Considering, however, that respondent has already returned to complainant the P30,500, the recommended penalty of SUSPENSION for six (6) months from the practice of law is sustained. Respondent is warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is likewise directed to submit certifications from the IBP and competent courts that he has indeed ceased and desisted from the practice of law during his suspension which shall commence from his receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Additional Member [per S.O. No. 588], Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, and Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona and Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Members, First Division, this 18th day of March, 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] Resolution dated 12 March 2007, Administrative Case No. 6973, Robert Francis F Maronilla and Rommel F. Maronilla v. Atty. Efren N. Jorda andAtty. Ida May J. La 'o.
[2] Resolution dated 12 July 2000, A.C. No. 3066 , J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. v. Eduardo De Vera, et al. and A.C. No. 4438, Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera v. Atty. Mervyn G. Encanto, et al.
