ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 122855.November 14, 2001]

METRO ILOILO WATER DISTRICT. vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 14 2001.

G.R. No. 122855(Metro Iloilo Water District vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Severino C. Aguilar, Emma Nava, Rufino Sitica, Jr., et al.)

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Pablo S. Tolentino, counsel for respondent Rufino Sitaca, praying that the fine in the amount of P5,000.00 imposed upon him for his failure to file the required memorandum be reduced to P2,000.00 and that the warrant for his arrest and detention be lifted.

The records show that in the Resolution of 28 June 1999, movant-counsel Tolentino was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for failure to file the required memorandum. ¹ p. 398, Rollo. Movant-counsel failed to comply with the Resolution of 28 June 1999, hence another Resolution dated November 22, 1999 was issued imposing upon him a fine of P1,000.00 or to suffer imprisonment of 5 days in case he fails to pay. Movant-counsel again failed to comply with the resolution requiring him to file the respondent's memorandum and, hence, an increase in the amount of fine to P2,000.00 and imprisonment of 10 days in case of failure to pay was imposed upon movant-counsel in the Resolution of 12 July 2000. ² p. 418, ibid. Movant-counsel did not pay the increased fine and neither did he file the required memorandum. Thus, on 14 February 2001, this Court issued a Resolution increasing further the fine to P5,000.00 payable within ten (10) days from notice, otherwise, he will be ordered arrested and detained until he files the required memorandum. ³ p. 421, ibid. Per Certification dated 9 August 2001 issued by Araceli C. Bayuga, Cashier V of the Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court, no payment of fine was made by movant-counsel. ⁴ p. 429, ibid. On 17 September 2001, this Court issued a Resolution for the issuance of warrant of arrest against movant-counsel and directed the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to arrest and detain him until he fully complies with the Resolution of 14 February 2001. ⁵ p. 430, ibid. On 11 October 2001, movant-counsel filed the respondent's Memorandum and paid the amount of P5,000.00 as court fine. ⁶ pp. 434 & 441, ibid.

The present motion for reconsideration was interposed seeking a reduction of the amount of fine from P5,000.00 to P2,000.00 and the lifting of the warrant of arrest.

Movant-counsel's main excuse for not filing the required Memorandum within the period was due to his client's failure to provide the necessary expenses for the preparation of the Memorandum. He claims that his client, who went to the United States without leaving any address, paid him "a meager sum of P7,000.00 for handling the case from the Regional Trial Court, to the Court of Appeals and now the Supreme Court". Movant-counsel further alleges that he became very sick and was ejected from his address that he had to transfer from one place to another.

Movant-counsel should be reminded that the legal profession is not a money-making venture but a noble involvement in the administration of justice. A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients. ⁷ Rule 14.04, Canon 14, Code of Professional Responsibility. He must represent his client with utmost fidelity, competence and diligence. ⁸ Canons 17 & 18, ibid. Moreover, his duty is enshrined in the Attorney's Oath which every lawyer has to take before he is allowed to practice law, i.e., "to delay no man for money or malice". Movant-counsel's repeated failure to file the respondent's memorandum is a clear violation of his oath. On this score alone, a reduction of the fine is not in order.

We recognize the fact that a lawyer, like other human beings, has a right to a livelihood and adequate compensation is necessary to enable him to serve his client effectively. However, counsel may enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident in the main action in which his services were rendered when something is due his client. The non-filing of pleadings required by the Court is not a remedy.

As regards the prayer to be relieved of his duties and responsibilities as counsel for respondent Sitaca, the same is denied. The procedure for change of counsel is set forth in Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Finally, the order for the .arrest of movant-counsel is a consequence of his non-compliance with this Court's resolutions requiring him to file the respondent's Memorandum and his detention would depend on the time when he will comply. Considering that movant-counsel has filed the respondent's Memorandum on 11 October 2001, his arrest and detention is now rendered moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED in that the Alias Warrant of Arrest issued pursuant to the Resolution of 17 September 2001 is LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE