Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Republic of the Philippines
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE
Pasig City

This is a complaint filed before this Office by complainant Nelia V. Perez on July 1, 2005 against respondent Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr. for dishonesty and gross negligence.

"The complaint alleges the following:

In the year 2000, complainant engaged the professional services of Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr. relative to the cases for sum of money that complainant intend to file at that time against her debtors.

After several meetings held Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr.., agreed to handle the cases for sum of money that complainant referred to him. As agreed, complainant paid Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr. the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, as and by way of acceptance fee plus appearance fee of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, for every hearing attended.

By way of professional services, Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela City, cases for sum of money against complainant's debtors, to wit:

Parties	Case No.	Branch
Nelia v. Perez vs. Sergio Matimtim	CV No. 8291	MTC 82
Nelia v. Perez vs. Imelda Palomares	CV No. 8289	MTC 82
Nelia v. Perez vs. Carmen Romasanta	CV No. 8288	MTC 82
Nelia v. Perez vs. Malyn Rondera	CV No. 8139	MTC 81
Nelia v. Perez vs. Agaton Penaflor	CV No. 8293	MTC 81
Nelia v. Perez vs. Junelyn Bello	CV No. 8134	MTC 81
Nelia v. Perez vs. Sherly Grimaldo	CV No. 8294	MTC 81
Nelia v. Perez vs. Iluminada Magturo	CV No. 8290	MTC 81
Nelia v. Perez vs. Marilyn Roldan	CV No. 8290	MTC 81
Nelia v. Perez vs. Eloisa Recana	CV No. 8292	MTC 81

Civil Cases No. 8288, 8289 and 8291 was raffled to MTC Branch 82. Summons in Civil Cases Nos. 8288, 8289 and 8291 were duly served to the defendants but the defendants failed to file their answer or responsive pleading to the complaints.

For the failure of the defendants in Civil Case No. 8288, 8289 and 8291 to file their answers and or responsive pleading within the reglementary period Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., as complainant's lawyer and in order to protect her interest as his client should have promptly filed before the court the appropriate pleadings after the defendants have failed to file an answer or responsive pleadings within the required period.

Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., negligently failed to file the necessary and appropriate pleadings in court to protect complainant's interest after the defendants in Civil Cases Nos. 8288, 8289 and 8291 failed to file an answer which prompted the MTC Branch 82 to issue an Order dated May 30, 2002, directing the plaintiff herein complainant to take the proper steps to prosecute the case otherwise the case shall be dismissed.

Notwithstanding receipt of the court's Order dated May 30, 2003 and despite the warning by the court Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., negligently still failed to take the necessary steps to prosecute the cases 8288, 8289 and 8291 as directed and warned by the court. Thus, on December 27, 2002, MTC Branch 82 issued an Order dismissing Civil Cases Nos. 8288, 8289 and 8291.

Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., after receipt of the said Order dated December 27, 2002, and for unknown reason still failed to take the appropriate legal steps to protect complainant's interest by asking for a reconsideration of the said order of dismissal. Thus, Order of dismissal dated December 27, 2002 became final because of the gross negligence of Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr.

Civil Cases Nos. 8139, 8293, 8134, 8294, 8137, 8290 and 8292 were raffled to Branch 81. Again, due to the gross negligence of Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., the Honorable Court in its Order dated December 21, 2001, ordered the dismissal of Civil Cases Nos. 8137, 8139 and 8134 for failure to prosecute.

Several months after the order of dismissal dated December 28, 2001 was issued in Civil Cases Nos. 8137, 8139 and 8134 Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr. filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Declare Defendants in Default. In its Order dated August 28, 2003 the Honorable Court MTC 81 denied the Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Declare Defendants in Default filed by Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr. on the ground that the motion was filed way beyond the reglementary period.

Anent Civil Cases Nos. 8290, 8292, 8293 and 8294 these cases were also ordered dismissed by the Honorable Court in the Order dated January 31, 2002, on the ground of failure to prosecute specifically for failure to serve the summons within reasonable length of time.

Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., this time filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Issuance of Alias Summons, which the court granted, and thus Civil Case Nos. 8290, 8292, 8293 and 8294 were reinstated.

After Civil Cases Nos. 8290, 8292, 8293 and 8294 were reinstated Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., again failed to take the necessary steps to prosecute the cases and thus, the Honorable Court again ordered the dismissal of the said cases in its Order dated September 24, 2002. On October 11, 2002, Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Declare in Default in the said cases in its Order dated August 28, 2003.

Complainant was very interested in prosecuting the above-cases that she filed that she or thru his representative makes it appoint to communicate regularly with Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., would often tell her or her representative not to worry and that every thing was in order. Unfortunately, the representations of Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., were contrary to what was the true status of the above-mentioned cases.

Complainant layman as she is in the rudiments of law and legal procedure expected that her counsel whom she have trusted to have a whole fealty and devotion will represent her legal cause. There is no denying as the records will bear that the reason for the dismissal of the cases of herein complainant against her debtors on several occasions was because of the gross negligence of her former counsel Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., to perform his solemn duty to represent his client cause. Indeed, Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., is guilty of gross negligence, a clear transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus:

CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DELIGENCE

RULE 18.3 A LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER ENTRUSTED TO HIM AND HIS NEGLIGENCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL RENDER HIM LIABLE.

Further, in another case, which was also filed by the complainant against Helen De Guzman in Civil Case No. 8136 which case was filed and raffled to MTC Branch 82 Valenzuela it was found out lately by herein complainant that Helen de Guzman paid to Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., the amount of her obligation. Unfortunately, the said amount, which was received by Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., which should had been remitted or turned over to herein complainant never reached the hands of complainant. Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr. never informed the complainant of such payment he is thus guilty of gross dishonesty for failing to account the amount of Thirty Five Thousand (P35,000.00) Pesos.

The acts of gross dishonesty and gross negligence of Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., enumerated and explained had caused complainant mental anguish and anxiety as well as financial prejudice. Undoubtedly, Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr., gross dishonesty and gross negligence are acts inimical to and he is not worthy of the noble legal profession and for this he appropriate disciplinary action should imposed against him.

I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of all the foregoing facts and in support of my administrative complaint against Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr."

On July 4, 2005 an Order was issued directing the respondent to file his answer to said complaint.

On August 12, 2005 an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Counter-Affidavit dated July 31, 2005 was filed by respondent dated July 31, 2005. Again on August 25, 2005 an Urgent Ex-Parte Final Motion for Extension to Time to File Counter Affidavit praying before this Commission at least fifteen (15) days from August 16, 2005 or until August 31, 2005 within which to file his Counter-Affidavit to the said complaint.

On October 11, 2005 a Notice of Mandatory Conference was issued directing the parties to appear for a conference on December 9, 2005 that was attended only by complainant and her counsel and the same was reset to January 12, 2006. On January 12, 2006, only the complainant appeared without her counsel and again there was no appearance from respondent despite receipt of the Order dated January 12, 2006 that constrained the Commission to reset the mandatory conference to February 7, 2006.

On February 7, 2006, the complainant appeared together with her counsel and moved for the termination of the mandatory conference and ask that the complainant be subjected to clarificatory questioning in order that the documents to be presented be identified which was granted by the Commission because of the blatant disregard of the respondent of the processes of this Commission and considering further that he has failed to file his answer despite of the fact that he filed two (2) motion for extension.

The issue at hand in this case is whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility as alleged by the complainant in her complaint.

As alleged by the complainant, respondent received the amount of P50,000.00 by way of acceptance fee. However, despite receipt of attorney's fee the respondent fail to make the necessary steps to prosecute the case hence, the cases filed by the respondent were all dismissed.

The complainant presented during the hearing copies of his Exhibit "A" which is the Order dated December 28, 2001 in Civil Cases No. 8137, 8139 and 8134 dismissing the case for failure of the plaintiff to pursue the cases within a reasonable length of time, showing apparent lack of interest, Exhibit "B" which is an Order dated August 28, 2003 in Civil Case No. 8137 before the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 81 of Valenzuela City wherein the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration with Motion To Declare Defendant in Default was denied, Exhibit "C" which is an Order dated August 28, 2003 in Civil Case No. 8134 denying the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Declare Defendant in Default before the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 81 of Valenzuela City, Exhibit "D", which is the Order dated August 28, 2003 in Civil Case No. 8294 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Declare the Defendant in Default filed on October 11, 2002 before the Metropolitan Trial Court Brach 81 of Valenzuela City, Exhibit "E" is an Order dated August 28, 2003 in Civil Case No. 8290 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Declare the Defendant in Default filed on October 11, 2002 before the Metropolitan Trial Court Brach 81 of Valenzuela City, Exhibit "F" is the Order dated January 31, 2002 in Civil Cases No. 8290, 8292, 8293 and 8294 which dismissed the cases for failure of the plaintiff to pursue these cases within a reasonable length of time, showing apparent lack of interest. Exhibit "G" is the Order dated September 21, 2002 in Civil Case No. 8290 which dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to pursue her case within a reasonable length of time, showing apparent lack of interest, Exhibit "H" is an Order dated September 24, 2002 which dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to pursue her case within a reasonable length of time, showing apparent lack of interest and Exhibit "I" which is an Acknowledgment Receipt dated May 20, 2002 acknowledging the partial payment of P35,000.00 from Ms. Helen de Guzman of her outstanding accountabilities to Ms. Nelia V. Perez.

The respondent in this case filed an extension of time to file answer or comment to the charge against him despite receipt of the Order the respondent failed to file his counter-affidavit for unknown reasons.

Respondent failed to file his answer and never appeared on all the scheduled healings wherein he was duly notified.

His non-attendance to all the hearings before the Commission on Bar Discipline is worthy to take notice. His attitude towards the case against him speak for itself. The respondent indeed did not attempt to present counter-evidence to prove his innocence. After requesting for extension of time to file answer, he did not bother to file the necessary answer for his defense despite of all the notices and order which were served in his official address not once did he appear.

The complainant present her evidence before the Commission and the evidence presented were all sufficient to prove that there is breach of professional ethics. The official receipt of payment Annex "I" was duly presented before this Body.

The respondent has violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The pertinent provisions are hereto quoted:

"CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL, OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED TO HIM.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL BE SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.01 - xxx

Rule 18.02 - xxx

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable"

The act of receiving professional fees and thereafter failing to render the corresponding legal service is a violation of the aforeqouted canons of Professional Responsibility.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, following the ruling of the Supreme Court on disciplinary action against erring attorneys, the penalty of six (6) months from the practice of law is hereby recommended to respondent Atty. Conrado S. Gozos.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Pasig City, June 28, 2006.

(Sgd.) WILFREDO E.J.E. REYES
Commissioner

---

NELIA V. PEREZ, Complainant,	CBD CASE NO. 05-1517
versus
ATTY. CONRADO S. GOZOS, Jr. Respondent.

Sir/Madam:

Please take notice that on January 18, 2007 a resolution was passed by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the above-entitled case the original of which is now on file in this office, quote:

RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2007-039
CBD Case No. 05-1517
Nelia V. Perez vs.
Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr.

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled 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 Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of professional Responsibility Atty. Conrado S. Gozos, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.