FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 11173 (Formerly CBD No. 13-3968), June 11, 2018
RE: CA-G.R. CV NO. 96282 (SPOUSES BAYANI AND MYRNA M. PARTOZA VS. LILIAN* B. MONTANO AND AMELIA SOLOMON), Complainant, v. ATTY. CLARO JORDAN M. SANTAMARIA, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
A recalcitrant lawyer who defies the directives of the court "must deservedly end in tribulation for the lawyer and in victory for the higher ends of justice."1
The administrative liability of a lawyer who repeatedly ignores the directives of the Court of Appeals (CA) is properly resolved in this case.
Factual Antecedents
A civil action for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, Reconveyance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-710729 and Damages2 was filed by the spouses Bayani and Myrna M. Partoza (spouses Partoza) against Lilia B. Montano and Amelia T. Solomon.
The case was dismissed3 by the Regional Trial Court.
On November 25, 2010, a Notice of Appeal4 was filed by the counsel on record, Atty. Samson D. Villanueva (Atty. Villanueva). The appeal was docketed as CA G.R. CV No. 96282 and in a Notice5 dated March 25, 2011, the CA required the submission of the Appellant's Brief pursuant to Rule 44, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
On April 27, 2011, however, Atty. Villanueva filed his Withdrawal of Appearance;6 subsequently, a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief7 dated May 19, 2011, was also filed. Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal of Appearance carried the conformity of the appellant's attorney-in-fact, Honnie M. Partoza (Honnie) who, on the same occasion, also acknowledged receipt of the entire records of the case from Atty. Villanueva.
Thereafter, respondent Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria (respondent) submitted an Appellant's Brief8 dated July 4, 2011.
In a Resolution9 dated August 4, 2011, the CA directed Atty. Villanueva to submit proof of authority of Honnic to represent appellants as their attorney-in-fact and the latter's conformity to Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal of Appearance; in the san1e resolution, the CA also required respondent to submit his formal Entry of Appearance, viz. :
Atty. Villanueva then filed a Manifestation with Motion10 dated August 31, 2011 explaining that he communicated with Ronnie and with appellants as well, but was informed that appellants were residing abroad (in Germany at the time). He then requested for a period of 15 days, or until September 15, 2011, to comply with the CA's Resolution.
CA G.R. CV No. 96282 Sps. BAYANI P. PARTOZA and MYRNA M. PARTOZA vs. LILIA B. MONTANO and AMELIA T. SOLOMON
Before acting on the counsel for appellant's Withdrawal of Appearance, [Atty. Villanueva] is directed to submit within five (5) days from notice the proof of authority of Honnie M. Partoza to represent the appellants and to signify his conformity to the Withdrawal of Appearance. In the meantime, the Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellants' Brief is granted in the interest of justice.
[Respondent] is directed to submit within five (5) days from notice his formal Entry of Appearance as counsel for appellants and to secure and submit to this Court also within the same period the written conformity of his clients to his appearance as their counsel. Likewise, said counsel is also directed to furnish this Court the assailed RTC Decision that should have been appended to the Appellant's Brief also within the same period.
The act of respondent in not filing any of the compliances required of him in the 4 August 2011, 20 March 2012, 5 September 2012, and 25 October 2012 Resolutions of the [CA] despite due notice, emphasized his contempt and total disregard of the legal proceedings, for which he should be held liable.Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
x x x x
Granting that he [was] not aware of the problem between Atty. Villanueva and [Honnie], he could have explained this fact by complying with the court resolutions and not just ignored them on the premise that he has no personality to represent the [spouses Partoza]. The compliances required of the respondent by the [CA] are provided under the rules for a valid substitution of counsel and validity of the appeal and may not be disregarded.
The nonchalant attitude of the respondent cannot be left unsanctioned. Clearly, his acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the [CA], which under Section 27. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a sufficient case for suspension. x x x
While it is true that lawyers owe 'entire devotion' to the cause of their clients, it cannot he emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is not to the client but to the administration or justice. Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility slates that 'A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.' x x x This is a fundamental principle in legal ethics and professional responsibility that has iterations in various forms:There is no dispute that respondent did not comply with five Resolutions of the CA. His actions were definitely contumacious. By his repeated failure, refusal or inability to comply with the CA resolutions, respondent displayed not only reprehensible conduct but showed an utter lack of respect for the CA and its orders. Respondent ought to know that a resolution issued by the CA, or any court for that matter, is not mere request that may be complied with partially or selectively.
x x x x
Because a lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him. (citations omitted)
SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appealing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority [to do so]. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied)This Court, in Anudon v. Cefra19 citing Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar,20 held that a lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders not only betrayed a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscored his disrespect towards the Court's lawful orders which was only too deserving of reproof
Endnotes:
* Also referred to as Lilia in some parts of the rollo.
** Per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018.
*** Per raffle dated June 11, 2018.
**** Per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
1Cuizon v. Atty. Macalino, 477 Phil. 569, 571 (2004).
2 Docketed as Civil Case No. N-7918.
3 See Decision dated October 28, 2010, rollo, pp 26-46.
4 Id. at 47-48.
5 Id. at 49.
6 Id. at 50-51.
7 Id. at 52-53.
8 Id. at 54-60.
9 Id. at 61-62.
10 Id. at 63-65.
11 Id. at 67-69.
12 Id. at 71-73.
13 Id. at 75-77.
14 Id. at 8-10.
15 Dated October 15, 2014; id. at 83-87.
16 Resolution No. XXI-2015-124 dated January 31, 2015; id. at 81-82.
17 Id., unpaginated.
18 767 Phil. 548, 553-554 (2015).
19 753 Phil. 421, 431-433 (2015).
20 559 Phil. 211 (2007).
21Bantolo v. Atty. Castillon, Jr., 514 Phil. 628, 632 (2005).
22In Re: Resolution Dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94656 v. Atty. Mortel, 791 Phil. 1 (2016).