ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 6618.� June 27, 2005]
SPS. VILLACERAN vs. CABUCANA
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 27 2005.
Adm. Case No. 6618 (Spouses Jose and Mila Villaceran vs. Atty. Edmar C. Cabucana.)
This treats of the Complaint dated 10 November 2004 filed against Atty. Edmar C. Cabucana by complainant Spouses Jose and Mila Villaceran, and the Compliance dated 11 March 2005 and Comment dated 10 March 2005 filed by respondent Atty. Cabucana.
Complainant Spouses Villaceran were the accused in two criminal
cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 wherein they hired the
services of respondent Atty. Cabucana. The criminal cases had their origins in
a loan in the amount of P1,000.000.00 contracted by complainant Mila
Villaceran with E.T.C. Pawnshop owned by Eva T. Co. To secure the loan, she
delivered several pieces of jewelry as collateral. She also issued a postdated
Land Bank of the Philippines Check for the loan amount of P1,000,000.00,
payable to Jaime Co, husband of Eva T. Co. Later, Mila Villaceran contracted
another loan also for P1,000,000.00, this time secured by a mortgage
over two real properties. She issued a postdated United Coconut Planters Bank check
for P1,000,000.00, payable to Jaime Co. It appears however that upon
presentment of the two checks for payment, the same were dishonored for having
been drawn against insufficient funds.
[1]
cralaw
During the course of the proceedings, respondent allegedly told
complainants that in order to ensure their acquittal, they had to pay P50,000.00
to the judge. Complainants advanced P25,000.00 to respondent and as
trial progressed, the balance of P25,000.00 was also delivered to
respondent. Administrative proceedings with respect to this incident are
pending against respondent Atty. Cabucana and the judge.
[2]
cralaw
Complainants were acquitted in the criminal cases but were adjudged civilly liable. As a consequence, all their bank deposits and other properties were attached and sold on execution. [3] cralaw
In their complaint, complainant spouses allege that respondent completely abandoned their defense when he did not introduce any evidence in their behalf to show the actual nature of the transactions they entered into with the spouses Eva T. Co and Jaime Co. They add that respondent did not subpoena the production of the cashier's check issued by Jaime Co payable to Mila Villaceran which was supposedly deposited to the account of Eva T. Co and would have absolved the spouses Villaceran of any civil liability. They also put him to task for not questioning the judgment imposing civil liability on them despite the fact that, according to them, no damage was averred in the informations nor any evidence introduced to prove damage. Finally, they claim that respondent failed to appeal the adverse decision nor inform them of the necessity of an appeal. [4] cralaw
Based on these allegations, complainants accuse respondent of violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.02, 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. [5] cralaw
Respondent was required to comment on the complaint in the
Resolution dated 26 January 2004. Denying the allegations in the complaint, in
his Comment,
[6]
cralaw
respondent claims he adduced evidence to prove the nature of the transactions
between the parties in the criminal cases, pointing to the direct testimony of
complainant Mila Villaceran to prove that the transaction entered into was a
mortgage. Respondent adds that other than a verbal agreement between Mila
Villaceran and the spouses Co, no document was shown or presented to him to
support the existence of a mortgage. According to respondent, Mila Villaceran
never informed him about the cashier's check she obtained from E.T.C. Pawnshop
through Jaime Co. She only mentioned to respondent that she had obtained the
amount of P2,000,000.00 from E.T.C. Pawnshop, but not that the amount
was given to her by means of a check. The P2,000,000.00 merely
represented the amount of the loan from E.T.C. Pawnshop, although it came from
the account of Jaime Co and was merely credited to the account of E.T.C.
Pawnshop since said pawnshop was jointly managed by the spouses Co. Respondent
insists that he timely filed a joint motion for reconsideration of the judgment
in the criminal cases. He informed and explained to complainants the decision
and its consequences immediately after promulgation and the legal steps they
had to take. They discussed the possibility of appealing the decision but Mila
Villaceran told respondent it would be better to just pay the amount adjudged
since the interest thereon was lower than the interest imposed by E.T.C.
Pawnshop on their loan, respondent asserts. He also denies the allegation that
he asked complainants to give money to the judge to ensure their acquittal.
After a close analysis of the Complaint and its attachments, as well the Comment filed by respondent, the Court is convinced that the complaint has no merit and should be dismissed.
Complainants accuse respondent of failure to comply with his duties as their counsel of record to defend them and to safeguard their interests. They criticize respondent's handling of the case especially with respect to the presentation of evidence in their defense. They also blame him for allegedly not appealing the decision which led to the finality and execution of the judgment against them.
The alleged mismanagement of the case involves the judgment call of the lawyer more than anything else. Complainants' opinions on how respondent should have conducted the trial of the case do not constitute proof of the latter's failure to perform his obligations as their counsel of record. Indeed, respondent was even able to obtain an acquittal for complainants, although they were adjudged civilly liable. Far from being proof of negligence by respondent, this just serves to convince the Court that he performed creditably as defense counsel in the cases.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a lawyer is presumed to be prompt and diligent in the performance of his obligations and to have employed his best efforts in the protection of his client's interests and in the discharge of his duties as an officer of the court. [7] cralaw
Success in litigation is not the test to determine whether a lawyer had lived up to his duties to his client. It is enough that with thorough preparation he has taken all the steps to prosecute or defend his client's cause. He cannot be held liable if, after due diligence on his part, he fails to secure what his client desires. [8] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Complaint dated 10 November 2004 filed against respondent is DISMISSED for lack or merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-2 and 11-12.
[2] cralaw Id. at 3-4.
[3] cralaw Id. at 4.
[4] cralaw Id. at 4-5.
[5] cralaw CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
..
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
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.
[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 37-44.
[7] cralaw People v. Mantawar, 80 Phil. 822-823 (1948).
[8] cralaw Atienza v. Evangelista, Adm. Case No. 1517, 29 November 1977, 80 SCRA 338, 341-342.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
