Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~uprtmt Court
;flanila
EN BANC
Promulgated:
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
* On leave.
1
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
Decision 2 A.C. No. 7178.
Facts
2
Complainant is the president and general manager of the company. In his
Complaint3 dated March 7, 2006, he narrated that he engaged the legal services of
4
respondent in relation to a case for illegal dismissal filed against him and the
company. All the pleadings and orders were directed to respondent because the
company no longer had active presence in Bacolod, save for the stockpile of
5
construction equipment found in Barangay Mansilingan. Sometime in February
2000, complainant signed the verification page of the position paper for the case
and sent it to respondent for his signature. However, respondent filed the position
paper without signing it. 6 The labor arbiter noticed the unsigned pleading and
directed respondent to sign it within 10 days from notice. 7 Respondent did not
comply with the directive.
In a Decision8 dated October 21, 2004, the labor arbiter ruled against the
company and noted that: "[the companyJ filed an unsigned position paper which
cannot be considered as such. Despite the order to Atty. Salvador Sabio to sign
said position paper, the order was deemed to have been taken for granted "9
Respondent received a copy of the Decision on January 13, 2005 but he did not
°
notify complainant about it. 1 Complainant only learned of the Decision after a
writ of execution was served on the company on June 2005 and by that time, it
was already too late to file an appeal. 11
Id. at 3, 69.
Id. at 1-2.
4
Titled Roni/a Medel, Armando Vasquez and Roberto Togonon, Jr. v. Simon Peter Equipment &
Construction System, Inc./Vicente M. Gimena, G.M., filed before the National Labor Relations
Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch XI in Davao City. Id. at 69.
5
Rollo, p. 1.
6 Id.
Rollo, pp. 17-18.
Id. at 19-31.
9
Id. at 19-20.
10
Id. at 32.
11
Id. at 2.
12
A.M. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995, 249 SCRA 172.
13
A.C. No. 4920, October 19, 2005, 473 SCRA 301.
14
15
Rollo, pp. 3?-49.
Id at 38.
16
Id. at 44. .
Decision 3 A.C. No. 7178
default. 17 Respondent further explained that he was not able to inform complainant
of the outcome of the case because he does not know the address of the company
after it allegedly abandoned its place of business in Barangay Mansilingan,
without leaving any forwarding address. 18 Respondent claimed that complainant
only communicated to him when the writ of execution was issued on July 27,
2005. 19 He faulted complainant and the company for being remiss in their legal
obligation to be in constant communication with him as to the status of the case. 20
We referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
report and recommendation. During the mandatory conference before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (the Commission), complainant and respondent
were asked to discuss their complaint and defense, respectively. For the first time,
respondent raised the issue of lack of attorney-client relationship. He pointed out
that he and complainant had never met each other and that there was no formal
engagement of his services. 26 The parties did not enter into stipulation of facts and
limited the issues to the following:
The Commission ordered the parties to file their verified position papers.
Respondent, in his Position Paper,28 reiterated that he cannot be expected to render
11 Id. at 43.
18 Id.
19 Rollo, p. 39.
20 Id. at 43.
21 Id. at 45-46.
22 Id. at 46.
23 Id. at 64-67.
24
Id. at 64.
25 Id. at 68. (
26 Id. at 111-113.
21 Id. at 128-129.
28 Id. at 156-164.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 7178.
legal services to the company and the complainant because no formal contract for
. services
1ega1retamer . was executed.29
IBP Recommendation
29
Id. at 160.
30
Id. at 223-231.
31
Id. at 226-227.
32
Id. at 38.
33 Id
34
Rollo, pp. 226-227.
35
Id. at 227.
36
37 Id at229. (
Id. at 230.
38
Id. at 230-231
39
Id at231.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 7178
Issue
Ruling
We concur with the findings of the IBP, with the addition that respondent
also violated Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also find
that a longer period of suspension is warranted in view of the number of times that
respondent had been disciplined administratively.
40
Id at 222.
41
Id at 232-240.
42
Id at 249.
43
Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569, 576 (1949), citing (7 C.J.S., 848-849; see Hirach Bros. and Co. v. R.E.
Kennington C 7 88. , .L.R., 1).
44 Id
45
Rollo, p. 9.
Decision 6 A.C. No. 7178
conclusive as to him, and all proofs to the contrary shall be ignored, whether
46
objection is interposed by the said party or not.
46
Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 451, 460, citing Elayda v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 49327, July 18, 1999, 199 SCRA 349, 353, citing Joe's Radio & Electrical Supply v.
Alto Electronics Corp. and Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., I 04 Phil. 333 (1958).
47
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
48
Agpalo, COMMENTS ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT, 2004, pp. 201-202, citing Galvez v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. L-22760, November 29, 1971,
42 SCRA 278, Johnlo Trading Co. v. Flores, 88 Phil. 741 (1951), People v. Mantawar, 80 Phil. 817
(1948), and Jn re Tionko, 43 Phil. 191 (1922). /
Brunet v. Guaren, A.C. No. 10164, March 10, 2014'. ~rRA 224, 226-227, citing Bengco v.
49
Bema,da, A.C. No. 6368, Juoe 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 8, 18/J
Decision 7 A.C. No. 7178
This is not the first time that respondent was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings. In Credito, 57 the then members of the Third Division found
respondent guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Similar to the present case, respondent's legal services were
engaged in connection with a labor suit. The labor case went up to us only to be
dismissed due to respondent's failure to attach the required certification on non-
forum shopping and to pay the total revised docket and other legal fees.
50
Rollo, pp. 256-257.
51
Id. at 257.
52
A.C. No. 620, March 21, 1974, 56 SCRA 30.
53
Id. at 39.
54
A.C. No. 5811, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 386.
55
Id. at 390. See also Heirs of Tiburcio F. Ballesteros, Sr. v. Apiag, A.C. No. 5760, September 30, 2005,
56
471SCRA111, 12r.,
Id. citing Tolentin v. Mangapit, A.C. No. 2251, September 29, 1983, 124 SCRA 741, 745.
57
Supra note 13.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 7178 .
Respondent also kept his clients in the dark as to the fact that their petition was
dismissed.
For this reason, we impose upon the respondent the penalty of suspension
from the practice oflaw for three (3) years.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, which is instructed to include a copy in respondent's personal file.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LASCO,JR.
Associate Justice Asslciate Justice
58
Supra note 12.
59
A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015, 748 SCRA 259.
60
Id at 269.
Decision 9 A.C. No. 7178
J~t/i;u~f-tE~o
Associate Justice
(On Leave)
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
.PERALTA
IENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
\
ESTELA Mfli7:E1tCG-BERNABE
Associate Justice , Associate.Justice
NS.CAGUIOA
1'E~~r.~
CLERK OF COURT, EN BANC
SUPREME cown