EN BANC
A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015
TEODULO F. ENRIQUEZ, Complaint, v. ATTY. EDILBERTO B. LAVADIA, JR., Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
Rule 12.03. - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. (Emphasis supplied)In fact, such proclivity on the part of Atty. Lavadia to file such motions precisely led to the filing of this complaint. In the course of this administrative proceeding, he continued to flaunt to this Court his willful defiance and disregard for court orders.
Rule 18.03. - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable.In Solidon v. Macalalad,42 we stated that receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services and failing to render the services is a violation of Canon 18 of the CPR. In that case, we also stated that a lawyer's failure to file the position paper is a per se violation of Rule 18.03 of the CPR.43 We pointed to the fiduciary nature of a lawyer's duty to his client. We stated:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x x A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her client. Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the management of the cases by giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer.44 (Citations omitted)In Mariveles v. Mallari,45 we disbarred Atty. Mallari for violating Rules 12.03 and 18.03 of the CPR. There, Atty. Mallari, after being granted a total of 245 days to file his client's appellant's brief failed to file the same, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Court considered Atty. Mallari's act a shameless disregard of his duties as a lawyer and found him to be unfit for membership in the noble profession.46 In the recent case of Figueras v. Jimenez,47 Atty. Jimenez was found administratively liable for failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his client.
xxx Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent's conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondent's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof."
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent's deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. (Citations omitted).
The present complaint was filed January 2002. We granted Atty. Lavadia every opportunity to file his comment to the complaint. We issued no less than eight resolutions ordering Atty. Lavadia to comment: two of which ordered him to pay fines of P1,000.00 and P2,000.00 and requiring him to show cause for his failure to file and to comply with the Court's resolutions. In fine, we have granted him a total of 155 days extension to file his comment, in response to his repeated pleas contained in his numerous ex parte motions. After a lapse of eight years, this Court referred the case to the IBP where Atty. Lavadia once again filed a motion for extension to file his position paper but nevertheless failed to file the same.
While this Court is not unsympathetic to the plight of Atty. Lavadia, we cannot countenance his act of repeatedly pleading for extensions of time and yet not submitting anything to the Court. This reflects his willful disregard for Court orders putting in question his suitability to discharge his duties and functions as a lawyer. As we stated in Vaflor-Fabroa52 the Court's Resolution is not a mere request. A lawyer's blatant disregard or refusal to comply with the Court's orders underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof. Here, this disbarment case has dragged on for years while we gave Atty. Lavadia every opportunity to file his comment. Despite the extended time granted him, he continued to fail to do so. Such obstinate disobedience to the Court's orders merits disciplinary action.
We said in Figueras v. Atty. Jimenez53 that the determination of whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion. This Court has imposed the penalties ranging from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension and, in grave cases, disbarment for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other pleading.
In the present case, we note that this is Atty. Lavadia's first infraction. However, given his proven propensity for filing motions for extension of time and not filing the required pleading, this Court finds that it should impose the severe sanction lest some other unknowing clients engage his services only to lose their case due to Atty. Lavadia's nonchalant attitude. Considering the gravity of Atty. Lavadia's cavalier actions both to his client and his impertinent attitude towards the Court, we find the penalty of DISBARMENT as recommended by the IBP appropriate.cralawred
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. is hereby DISBARRED for violating Canons 11 and 18 and Rules 10.03, 12.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Court Administrator, the Department of Justice and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Peralta, and Leonen, JJ., on official leave.
Endnotes:
1 Received by the OBC on January 16, 2002 and docketed as A.C. No. 5686. Rollo, pp. 5-8.
2 Also referred to as "Teodolo" in some parts of the pleadings.
3 Docketed as Civil Case No. 446. Id. at 12-20.
4 Enriquez paid P20,000.00 as acceptance fee in four equal instalments. Id. at 52-55.
5 Answer submitted to the lower court was signed by Attys. Alo and Lavadia. Id. at 37-49.
6 Signed by Acting MCTC Judge Avelino N. Puracan. Id. at 64-69.
7 Id. at 67-69.
8 Dated September 12, 2000. Id. at 70-71.
9 Signed by Presiding Judge Irma Zita V. Masamayor. Id. at 73-74.
10 1997 REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 40, Section 7(b) provides:
SEC. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court. —x x x x
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant's memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied)
11 Signed by Presiding Judge Irma Zita V. Masamayor. Id. at 75.
12 Id. at 7.
13 Id. at 76.
14 Id. at 77-78.
15 Resolution dated November 11, 2002. Id. at 80.
16 Id. at 81.
17 Id. at 82.
18 Dated December 18, 2002 and January 17, 2003. Id. at 85-86 and 89-90.
19 Resolution dated April 9, 2003. Id. at 92.
20 Id. at 94-95.
21 Resolution dated June 18, 2003. Id. at 97.
22 Resolution dated May 24, 2004. Id. at 98.
23 Resolution dated March 7, 2005. Id. at 99.
24 Id. at 100-101.
25 Id. at 104-110.
26 Resolution dated July 11, 2005. Id. at 112.
27 Id. at 113.
28 Id. at 114.
29 Id. at 116.
30 Id. at 117.
31 Id. at 118-119.
32 Id. at 123.
33 Signed by Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero. Id. at 127-132.
34 IBP Resolution No. XX-2013-111. Id. at 126.
35 Id. at 133-146.
36 IBP Resolution No. XXI-2014-335. Id. at 179-180.
37 See Molina v. Magat, A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1, 6.
38 See Reddi v. Sebrio, Jr., 597 Phil. 168, 180 (2009); Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya, 390 Phil. 1, 10 (2000).
39Molina v. Magat, supra note 37.
40 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 27.
41 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 18 provides:Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
42 627 Phil. 284 (2010).
43 Id. at 289-290.
44 Id. at 290-291.
45 Adm. Case No. 3294, February 17, 1993, 219 SCRA 44.
46 Id. at 45 and 46.
47 A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014.
48 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 11 provides:Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
49 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 10.03 provides:Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
50 629 Phil. 230, 236-237 (2010).
51 559 Phil. 211, 224 (2007).
52 Supra note 50.
53 Supra note 47, at 5.