Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6899 : November 16, 2011]

ROGELIO F. ESTAVILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. GEMMO G. GUILLERMO AND ERME S. LABAYOG, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N


BRION, J.:

We review Resolution No. XIX-2011-503,1 passed on June 26, 2011 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), granting the motion for reconsideration of Attys. Gemmo G. Guillermo and Erme S. Labayog (respondents), thereby lowering the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months against the two lawyers (imposed in Resolution No. XVIII-2009-072) to REPRIMAND.  The respondents were penalized for violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Case

On September 6, 2005, Rogelio F. Estavillo (complainant) filed an affidavit-complaint3 with the Office of the Bar Confidant, charging the respondents with gross negligence.  The complainant and his son, Dexter, engaged the services of the respondents in Civil Case No. 31834 for Forcible Entry and Damages, filed against them by Teresita A. Guerrero with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Laoag City.

In particular, the complainant charged the respondents for their failure to file an answer in the civil case within the period fixed by the Rules of Court, as required by the summons dated March 18, 20055 which commanded:

You are hereby required to enter your appearance in the above-entitled case within ten (10) days after the service of the summons upon you, exclusive of the day of such service, and to answer the complaint served upon you within the period fixed by the Rules of Court. If you fail to appear within the aforesaid period, the plaintiff will take judgment against you by default and demand from this Court the relief prayed for in said complaint.

The MTCC noted that the summons was served on the Estavillos on March 18, 2005, leaving them until March 28, 2005 within which to file their answer to the complaint.  The respondents filed the answer only on April 4, 2005, or seven (7) days beyond the ten (10)-day period under the Rules.  For this reason, the court, upon Guerrero's motion, issued an order striking the answer from the records.6

The complainant further claimed that the respondents did not inform him or his son of scheduled hearings and incidents related to the civil case, notably the following:

1)  the April 15, 2005 hearing on Guerrero's motion to strike out the pleading (answer) filed by the respondents, as well as the motion to cite them for indirect contempt;

2)  the Order dated March 28, 20057 with a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, ordering them; to demolish the fence they built on the disputed property; to refrain from demolishing or continuing with the demolition of Guerrero's house; and to refrain from continuing with the construction of the fence on the property in dispute;

3)  the Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Adduce Evidence in Support of her Prayer for Damages, with notice of hearing on May 20, 2005;8 the hearing was held without the appearance of either of the respondents; and

4)  the Order dated May 31, 2005,9 directing the complainant and his son to solidarily pay Guerrero P20,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P30,000.00 as attorney's fee, and P3,060.00 as cost of suit.

Still further, the complainant bewailed that at 5:00 p.m. on June 24, 2005, as he and his son were waiting at the respondents' law office, Atty. Guillermo finally arrived; they told the lawyer about their discovery of the May 31, 2005 order; when they asked him why they were not advised of the judgment, Atty. Guillermo just answered, We have plenty of work.
Top of Page