Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

A.C. No. 7572 - (Cornelio P. Pelaez vs. Atty. Roberto B. Awid)

RESOLUTION 

The present disbarment case originated from a Complaint^[1] dated July 17, 2007 filed by Cornelio P. Pelaez (Pelaez) before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) of the Supreme Court charging Atty. Roberto B. Awid (Atty. Awid) with violation of Rules 1.01, 12.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In his complaint, Pelaez claimed that, at approximately 8:30 in the morning of November 14, 2005, he had already parked his car with plate number TDW-654 at the parking lot of the Quezon City Hall Compound when another car driven by Atty. Awid suddenly hit it, causing damage to its right front fender and bumper. The latter apologized, and undertook to pay the damages in a handwritten note^[2] which indicated his address at 38 Bustamante St., Galas, Quezon City, and cellular phone number 0919-5788939. Thereafter, they parted ways.

However, when Pelaez was claiming payment, Atty. Awid allegedly ignored his calls and text messages, prompting him to file on January 5, 2006 a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property docketed as I.S. No. 06-158 (hereinafter reckless imprudence case) before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. Atty. Awid failed to appear at the scheduled preliminary investigation and to file his counter-affidavit. Thus, on November 14, 2006, Pelaez moved for an early resolution of the case.

Shortly thereafter, on November 21, 2006, Atty. Awid sought to re-open the case claiming that the subpoena intended for him was sent to the wrong address. The forwarding address indicated in his motion is "C/o Toto and Cesar. Kambingan, E. Rodriguez Ave. cor. Araneta Ave., QC".

The case was then set for hearing on January 11, 2007 but Atty. Awid moved for a resetting to January 25, 2007 because he was allegedly committed to appear before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108, in Criminal Case No. 06-1261 CFM entitled "People vs. Susing G. Chan". Again, he moved for the postponement of the hearing on June 4, 2007 citing the same reason. Verification with said court, however, showed that Atty. Awid had no scheduled hearing on said dates.

On the other hand, Atty. Awid stressed that it was Pelaez who bumped the rear bumper and rear tail light of his parked car. While Atty. Awid was then putting on his barong, Pelaez approached him and threatened him with a .45 caliber pistol claiming that he is a colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He was trembling with fear and experiencing numbness in his hands and feet when Pelaez made him write the note promising to shoulder the expenses for the damage to his (Pelaez) car. But it was Pelaez himself who wrote the incorrect address on the note after he (Atty. Awid) showed him his identification card.

Thereafter, Atty. Awid allegedly proceeded to the city hall to report the incident. When he and a police officer returned to the parking lot, Pelaez had already left.

The following day, Pelaez called Atty. Awid and demanded P10,000.00 for damages, P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, and another P5,000.00 for transportation expenses and alleged loss of earnings, which the latter rejected. Instead, Atty. Awid sought the payment of P1,000.00 for the damage sustained by his own car. Pelaez thereupon threatened to shoot him so he (Atty. Awid) just turned off his phone. He likewise received threatening text messages from Pelaez forcing him to change his SIM card.

Atty. Awid later learned of the reckless imprudence case  filed by Pelaez against him from a former neighbor who works as a clerk at the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. He attributed the delay, in the resolution of said case to the appointment to the bench of the Assistant City Prosecutor handling the case, and cited honest mistake in recording his trial and appointment schedules in his calendar.

In the Resolution^[3]  dated February 6, 2008, the Court resolved to refer this administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation^[4] dated February 25, 2009, the Investigating IBP Commissioner found Atty. Awid to have transgressed the Code of Professional Responsibility meriting suspension from the active practice of law for three (3) months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved said recommendation in its Resolution No. XIX-2010-294^[5] dated April 16, 2010.

Aggrieved, Atty. Awid filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating his defense and manifesting that the reckless imprudence case filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 41, docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-3822, was subsequently dismissed for Pelaez's failure to present evidence to substantiate his claim. The motion was denied in the Resolution No. XIX-2011-356 dated June 26, 2011.

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.   

"The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it."^[6]  As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and 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.^[7]  Thus, a lawyer should not use his knowledge of law to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.^[8] 

Pertinent are Rules 12.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provide: 

"Rule 12.03 - 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. 

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes."

Records show that Atty. Awid moved^[9] 9 to re-open the preliminary investigation of the reckless imprudence case against him in order to file his counter-affidavit and evidence, but failed to do so despite the lapse of a long period of time in violation of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The fact that he falsely represented that he had prior commitments in another case in order to secure several postponements of the preliminary investigation of his own case cannot be negated by the tenuous claim of "honest mistake�. Having violated Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for unduly delaying said preliminary investigation before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office, Atty. Awid deserves to be sanctioned.

That the reckless imprudence case against Atty. Awid was dismissed on account of Pelaez's failure to present evidence is of no consequence. It is horn-book doctrine that administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, belonging to a class of their own. They are neither civil nor criminal and involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.^[10] So long as the quantum of proof, namely, clear preponderance of evidence,^[11]  is met as in this case, then liability attaches.

While we rule that Atty. Awid should be penalized for his actions, we are minded, however, that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.^[12] "Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired."^[13] Thus, We find that the recommended suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months is sufficient penalty under the attendant circumstances of this case. cralaw

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ROBERTO B. AWID is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 12.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the active practice of law for THREE (3) MONTHS effective from the finality of this Resolution. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal record of Atty. Roberto B. Awid, and copies furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts. (Velasco, Jr., J., no part, due to relationship to a party; Sereno, J., designated member per Raffle dated January 30, 2012)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.

^[2] Id. at 4. 

^[3] Id. at 28. 

^[4] IBP rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2-6. 

^[5] Id. at 1. 

^[6] Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 85. 

^[7] Aranda v. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 336 

^[8] Prieto v. Corpuz, A.C. No. 6517, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 1. 

^[9] Rollo, p. 11. 

^[10] Sebastian vs. Bajar, A.C. No. 3731, September 7, 2007, 532 SCRA 435. 

^[11] St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff vs. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 614. 

^[12] Antonio Conlu vs. Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr., A.C. No. 4955, September 12, 2011; Garrido vs. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 508. 

^[13] Lim vs. Montano, A.C. No. 5653, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 192.