ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 5330. December 5, 2000]

HEINZ R. HECK vs. ATTY. VERZOSA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 5 2000.

A.C. No. 5330 (Heinz R. Heck v. Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa and/or others who may be involved.)

This is a complaint initiated by Mr. Heinz R. Heck, a Swedish national, "for disbarment and other disciplinary action against Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa and or others who may be involved," for their alleged failure to inform "the courts in the land" of the resolution dated 27 March 2000 of the Court in Adm. Case No. 4083 entitled "Leonito Gonato and Primrose Gonato v. Atty. Cesilo A. Adaza" which ordered the suspension of Atty. Adaza from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.

On 2 December 1999 the Office of the Bar Confidant received a letter from complainant Heinz R. Heck dated 26 November 1999 inquiring about the reported suspension of Atty. Adaza. It appears from the allegation of Heck that he paid Atty. Adaza P100,000.00 to represent his corporation from June 1999 to December 1999 and the latter was not honest nor candid to admit that he could not perform the legal service because of his suspension. However, as of the date complainant wrote respondent Bar Confidant, no suspension order could be found in the courts of Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental.

In its reply of 10 December 1999, the Office of the Bar Confidant informed Heck that "proceedings against attorneys are considered private and confidential. Should there be a case, only the final order of the Supreme Court is published (and made available to the public) like its decisions in other cases x x x x As of this date, Atty. CESILO A. ADAZA is not suffering from any legal disability to practice law."

Soon thereafter, Heck wrote a succession of letters to various officials of this Court invariably complaining that he has been given the "run-around" by the Bar Confidant. Aggrieved by what appeared to him to be a seeming disinterest in his demands, Heck filed the instant complaint for disbarment on 11 September 2000 for alleged failure of Atty. Verzosa to clarify whether Atty. Adaza had been suspended and why the latter was still appearing before the Regional Trial Courts in Cagayan de Oro City.

A chronology of events would show that on 27 March 2000 the Court rendered its resolution in Adm. Case No. 4083 suspending Atty. Adaza from the practice, of law for a period of six (6) months from notice. On 12 April 2000 Atty. Adaza received copy of the resolution. On 17 April 2000 he filed a motion to be allowed to file a motion for reconsideration of the 27 March 2000 resolution, which the Court granted on' 26 June 2000. On 14 June 2000 Atty. Adaza filed his motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied with finality in its resolution of 31 July 2000 for lack of merit. Atty. Adaza received copy of the 31 July 2000 resolution on 5 September 2000. On 4 October 2000 Atty. Verzosa duly informed Heck of the final decision.

It thus appears from the records that Atty. .Verzosa did not renege in her duties as Bar Confidant to inform "the courts in the land" of the suspension of Atty. Adaza. For under Sec. 18, Rule 139, of the Rules of Court, "(p)roceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decision in other cases."

It is but proper therefore that the disbarment case filed by the Gonatos in Adm. Case No. 4083 be conducted in a private and confidential manner. This would necessarily mean that persons like complainant Heck, who are not parties to the case, will not be informed of its developments until after it has been finally resolved.

The resolution suspending Atty. Adaza did not become final until after receipt by him on 5 September 2000 of the resolution denying with finality his motion for reconsideration. Atty. Adaza would be denied his right to due process were we to construe that his suspension became ipso facto operative on 27 March 2000 when the Court ordered his six-months suspension. Relevant are the rulings in J. K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. v. Eduardo de Vera (Adm. Case No. 3066, 12 July 2000) and Atty. Eduardo de Vera v. Atty. Mervyn Encanto (Adm. Case No. 4438, 12 July 2000) where we held that when the Court is silent on the effectivity date of its order of suspension and the respondent has filed a timely motion for reconsideration thereof, the date of effectivity should be reckoned from the receipt of the denial with finality of the motion for reconsideration. Thus the continued appearances of the lawyer concerned prior to notice of denial of his motion for reconsideration are still in order.

It follows therefore that only after receipt by Atty. Adaza on 5 September 2000 of the resolution denying with finality his motion for reconsideration will the "courts in the land" and the public as well be ,furnished copies thereof, stressing that as a matter of policy, the circularization of the order of suspension is done only after the decision has become final Thus it cannot be denied that Atty Verzosa was not remiss in promptly informing Heck on 4 October 2000 that the resolution in Adm. Case No. 4083 had become final and executory.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant complaint, for disbarment is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. This case is considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court�

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE