Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > March 1992 Decisions > A.C. No. 2405 March 11, 1992 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., v. OLEEGARIO SANTISTEBAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 2405. March 11, 1992.]

PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., Iloilo City Branch, herein represented by its Branch Manager, NAPOLEON T. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. ATTY. OLEEGARIO SANTISTEBAN, Respondent.

Rex C. Muñoz for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; COUNSEL SHOULD EXERCISE REASONABLE DEGREE OF DILIGENCE AND COMPETENCE IN HANDLING HIS CLIENT’S CAUSE. — As counsel for the complainant, respondent was expected to exercise a reasonable degree of diligence and competence in handling his client’s cause (Adarne v. Aldaba, 83 SCRA 734).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO FAITHFULLY PERFORM DUTY WARRANTS SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE OF LAW. — Respondent cannot shrink from such duty by conveniently pointing to another lawyer whose statement (to confirm respondent’s assertion that he was not the regular counsel of complainant) was not even presented in court. Respondent’s sheer denial cannot overcome evidence clearly and positively showing that he was engaged as counsel by the complainant. Respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration despite having been instructed to do so by the trial judge amounts to negligence. His explanation that the judge had already advised him of the improbability of the decision being reconsidered is devoid of merit. Respondent should have nevertheless taken the appropriate steps in order to prevent the judgment from becoming final and executory. Worse, respondent did not bother to inform the complainant of the status of the case, not even after he received a copy of the decision. He should not have gone to Iloilo without leaving someone in his office to act on urgent matters and to notify him of developments in the case he was handling. This is sheer lack of professional sincerity. And even assuming that respondent was not the regular counsel of the complainant, he should have nonetheless apprised the regular counsel of the latest developments of the case so that the latter could have acted accordingly to protect the complainant’s interest. The fact that Atty. Orcullo, allegedly the regular counsel of the complainant, also did not act on the case would verily show the falsity of respondent’s allegations, a manifest attempt on the part of respondent to deceive the Court. As correctly pointed out by the Bar Confidant’s Office, respondent had not only demonstrated his lack of professional competence, diligence and fidelity to his client’s cause causing material prejudice to the complainant but he had also been untruthful to the Court by deliberately trying to mislead it. Respondent’s suspension from the practice of law is, therefore, in order. WHEREFORE, Atty. Olegario Santisteban is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from the dated of his receipt of this resolution. This decision is immediately executory.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:


The respondent, Atty. Olegario Santisteban, was charged by the complainant, Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc., with malpractice for having been grossly remiss in the performance of his duties and functions as an attorney. The complaint dated May 21, 1982 sought the respondent’s disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The instant administrative complaint arose from Civil Case No. 12945 filed by one Edgardo Tono for damages caused to his passenger jeepney and auto repair shop by defendant Cyril Perez while driving the passenger truck of his co-defendant Celestino Pioncio. A third-party complaint was filed against the complainant (being the insurance carrier of the truck owner).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The evidence discloses that complainant insurance company was originally represented by Atty. Gingoyon. Due, however, to Atty. Gingoyon’s unavailability, complainant had to obtain the service of other counsels, the last of whom was herein respondent Atty. Olegario Santisteban. It is undisputed that respondent had been duly paid his attorney’s fees; however, he failed to appear during the scheduled hearings to present evidence in defense of the insurance company and likewise did not inform the latter as to the latest developments of the case. When a decision adverse to the company was finally rendered on February 16, 1982, complainant insurance company was also not advised of the same. Complainant learned about the decision only on May 3, 1982 when the Deputy Provincial Sheriff levied upon and garnished its bank deposit with the Far East Bank and Trust Co., Inc. to satisfy the judgment and the sheriff’s fees. As a result thereof, complainant was constrained to plead and compromise with the other party in order that the garnishment may be lifted.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Respondent admitted that he was paid for his legal services, and alleged that he appeared during a hearing of the case upon the request of Atty. Orcullo, the regular counsel of complainant, who had assured him that the case was up for amicable settlement. According to the respondent, he was five minutes late for the said hearing due to the distance he had to travel by public transportation. He, however, learned that the case had already been submitted for decision so he decided to talk with the judge who advised him to file a motion for reconsideration. He was not able to notify the insurance company of the decision because he learned about it only after the period to perfect the appeal had lapsed, since he was in Iloilo at the time.

Complainant insurance company, in its reply, argued that it is respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration despite instructions from the judge to do so which prompted the trial court to render its decision. Respondent explained that he asked the judge to reconsider his order but he was told that there is very little probability that he (the judge) would reconsider so respondent decided to simply let the regular counsel of complainant handle the matter. Respondent further emphasized that he only agreed to appear for the complainant in the belief that there would be an amicable settlement such that he was caught unprepared by the sudden turn of events. (pp. 2-3, Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant).

The Office of the Bar Confidant filed its report in due time recommending therein the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, for lack of professional competence, diligence and fidelity to his client’s cause and for having been untruthful and unfair to the Court by deliberately trying to mislead it. (Page 5, Report).

We agree with the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Respondent admits that he appeared in behalf of the complainant and that he received payment for such appearance, although he denies being the regular counsel of the complainant. However, the record of the case discloses that respondent was the last counsel of record of the complainant. Respondent appeared not only on February 4, 1982 for the trial of the case but also on September 25, 1981 during the pre-trial, billing the complainant for such appearances. (Annexes A, B, C & D to the complainant; pp. 5-8, Records).

As counsel for the complainant, respondent was expected to exercise a reasonable degree of diligence and competence in handling his client’s cause (Adarne v. Aldaba, 83 SCRA 734). Respondent cannot shrink from such duty by conveniently pointing to another lawyer whose statement (to confirm respondent’s assertion that he was not the regular counsel of complainant) was not even presented in court. Respondent’s sheer denial cannot overcome evidence clearly and positively showing that he was engaged as counsel by the complainant.

Respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration despite having been instructed to do so by the trial judge amounts to negligence. His explanation that the judge had already advised him of the improbability of the decision being reconsidered is devoid of merit. Respondent should have nevertheless taken the appropriate steps in order to prevent the judgment from becoming final and executory. Worse, respondent did not bother to inform the complainant of the status of the case, not even after he received a copy of the decision. He should not have gone to Iloilo without leaving someone in his office to act on urgent matters and to notify him of developments in the case he was handling. This is sheer lack of professional sincerity. And even assuming that respondent was not the regular counsel of the complainant, he should have nonetheless apprised the regular counsel of the latest developments of the case so that the latter could have acted accordingly to protect the complainant’s interest. The fact that Atty. Orcullo, allegedly the regular counsel of the complainant, also did not act on the case would verily show the falsity of respondent’s allegations, a manifest attempt on the part of respondent to deceive the Court. As correctly pointed out by the Bar Confidant’s Office, respondent had not only demonstrated his lack of professional competence, diligence and fidelity to his client’s cause causing material prejudice to the complainant but he had also been untruthful to the Court by deliberately trying to mislead it. Respondent’s suspension from the practice of law is, therefore, in order.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, Atty. Olegario Santisteban is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from the dated of his receipt of this resolution. This decision is immediately executory. Let copies of this resolution be attached to his personal record and circulated among the different courts.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86150 March 2, 1992 - GUMAN, BOCALING & CO. v. RAOUL S.V. BONNEVIE

  • A.M. No. P-88-255 March 3, 1992 - MANUEL U. DEL ROSARlO v. JOSE T. BASCAR, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 46460-61 March 3, 1992 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82511 March 3, 1992 - GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85479 March 3, 1992 - PERFECTO ESPAÑOL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93003 March 3, 1992 - CARMELITA REYES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 95696 March 3, 1992 - ALFONSO S. TAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101753 March 3, 1992 - CIPRIANO PEÑAFLORIDA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42987 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE REBULADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84363 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO B. ALILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09 March 4, 1992 - DANIEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91745 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO MANLIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96607 March 4, 1992 - OSCAR QUILOÑA v. GENERAL COURT MARTIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97296 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. CANCILLER

  • G.R. Nos. 102653, 102925, 102983 March 5, 1992 - NATIONAL PRESS CLUB v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 58879 March 6, 1992 - EXPEDITA LIBREA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62088 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON SAMILLANO

  • G.R. No. 66641 March 6, 1992 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77744 March 6, 1992 - TEODORA CLAVERIAS v. ADORACION QUINGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89983-84 March 6, 1992 - LORENZO S. MENDIOLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92501 March 6, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92878 March 6, 1992 - EDUARDO PATNA-AN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93851 March 6, 1992 - MARK BAYQUEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94530 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DONATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103102 March 6, 1992 - CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE, JR. v. JOB B. MADAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95370 & 101227 March 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EFREN O. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2405 March 11, 1992 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., v. OLEEGARIO SANTISTEBAN

  • G.R. No. 40243 March 11, 1992 - CELESTINO TATEL v. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47815 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84612 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86744 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91662 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO AGUILUZ

  • G.R. No. 94129 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 95594 March 11, 1992 - ITALIAN VILLAGE RESTAURANT, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57630 March 13, 1992 - CLARA BADAYOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100926 March 13, 1992 - INDEPENDENT SAGAY-ESCALANTE PLANTERS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 3216 March 16, 1992 - DOMINGA VELASCO ORDONIO v. JOSEPHINE PALOGAN EDUARTE

  • G.R. Nos. 74306 & 74315 March 16, 1992 - ENRIQUE RAZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91122 March 16, 1992 - DIONY RAPIZ, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93234 March 16, 1992 - PEDRO S. RAVELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94803 March 16, 1992 - TALAGA BARANGAY WATER SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95692 March 16, 1992 - SUNDAY MACHINE WORKS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98030 March 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO J. CUADRA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85469 March 18, 1992 - JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87148 March 18, 1992 - MARCIANA CONSIGNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94810 March 18, 1992 - EASTERN METROPOLITAN BUS CORP., ET AL. v. EDILBERTO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94929-30 March 18, 1992 - PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97357 March 18, 1992 - VIRON GARMENTS MANUFACTURING, CO., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100727 March 18, 1992 - COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71238 March 19, 1992 - LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75308 March 23, 1992 - LOPE SARREAL, SR. v. JAPAN AIR LINES CO., LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75907 March 23, 1992 - FAMILY PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE PHIL., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80658-60 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO TINAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90519 March 23, 1992 - UNION OF FILIPINO WORKERS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90527 March 23, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BAAO, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92442-43 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 92740 March 23, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. JAIME J. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95022 March 23, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95536 March 23, 1992 - ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97346 March 23, 1992 - RODOLFO YOSORES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101367 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMO CATUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83583-84 March 25, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84220 March 25, 1992 - BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992 - OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88942 March 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLO S. CARPIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-87-98 March 26, 1992 - AMELIA B. JUVIDA v. MANUEL SERAPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93044 March 26, 1992 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL WAGES COUNCIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96697 March 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME COMPETENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45425 & 45965 March 27, 1992 - CELSA L. VDA. DE KILAYKO, ET AL. v. ERNESTO TENGCO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3724 March 31, 1992 - JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO v. RAMON J. QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64220 March 31, 1992 - SEARTH COMMODITIES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76225 March 31, 1992 - ESPIRIDION TANPINGCO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87710 March 31, 1992 - ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS OF TELEVISION STATIONS RPN, BBC AND IBC

  • G.R. No. 94071 March 31, 1992 - NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO ARCEGA

  • G.R. No. 97149 March 31, 1992 - FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101556 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ESTERA

  • G.R. No. 103956 March 31, 1992 - BLO UMPAR ADIONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS