EN BANC
A.C. No. 10753 (Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2703), January 26, 2016
ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Failure of counsel to act upon a client's case resulting in the prescription of available remedies is negligence in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The general rule is that notice to counsel is notice to client. This rule remains until counsel notifies the court that he or she is withdrawing his or her appearance, or client informs the court of change of counsel. Untruthful statements made in pleadings filed before courts, to make it appear that the pleadings are filed on time, are contrary to a lawyer's duty of committing no falsehood.
Atty. Pablo B. Francisco (Atty. Francisco) filed an administrative Complaint1 for violation of Canons 10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against Atty. Romeo M. Flores (Atty. Flores) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, alleging dishonesty and negligence on the part of Atty. Flores.
Atty. Francisco alleged that he filed a Complaint for forcible entry against Rainier Fineza and his mother, Teodora Fineza, (Finezas) before the Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal.2 The Finezas were represented by Atty. Flores.3
The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the Finezas.4 Atty. Francisco filed an appeal before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal.5 However, the appeal was denied.6
Atty. Francisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration,7 which was granted by the Regional Trial Court in an Order dated January 23, 2009. The Finezas were then ordered to vacate the property and to pay rentals.9
Atty. Flores filed a Motion for Reconsideration10 of the trial court's Order granting Atty. Francisco's Motion for Reconsideration. Atty. Francisco filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration.11 In an Order12 dated March 26, 2009, Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Flores.
The registry return receipt shows that Atty. Flores received a copy of the Regional Trial Court's Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration on April 3, 2009, while the Finezas received their copy of the Order on April 7, 2009.13
On April 7, 2009, Atty. Francisco filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Remand Records of the case to the Municipal Trial Court for Execution of Judgment. He alleges that a copy of the Ex-Parte Motion was served on Atty. Flores through registered mail.14
On May 20, 2009, Analiza P. Santos, Officer-in-Charge of Branch 67, Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, issued a Certification15 stating that:
This is to certify that the Order of this Court dated January 23, 2009 relative to the above-entitled case [referring to Pablo B. Francisco v. Rainier Fineza and Teddy Fineza] has never been amended, appealed or modified; hence, this Order is now considered final and executory.16
3. Defendants did not receive a copy or have no knowledge of the Order dated 26 March 2009 denying their motion for reconsideration, hence, was not able to hire the services of other lawyer to seek relief from the adverse consequences of the said Order;
4. It was only on June 29, 2009 that defendants through their lawyer came to know of the Order dated March 26, 2009[,] denying their "Motion for Reconsideration" of the decision/Order dated January 15, 2009 reversing the Order of Dismissal by the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, Binangonan, Rizal;
5. This petition is being filed within sixty days after the petitioners obtained knowledge on June 29, 2009 of the Order/decision dated March 26, 2009 denying the motion for reconsideration and not more than six (6) months after judgment was entered on May 20, 2009[.]25 (Emphasis supplied)
2. The petition was filed in SCA No. 09-015, not in SCA No. 08-018 of the same Regional Trial Court, in violation of Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court;
. . . .
4. It can not be that petitioners came to know through their lawyer of the Order, dated March 26, 2009 only on June 29, 2009. That allegation is a travesty of facts because on June 3, 2009, respondent [referring to Atty. Francisco] filed his motion for issuance of writ of execution of the RTC decision with the Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan and furnished a copy of said motion to petitioners' counsel [referring to Atty. Flores] on the same day of June 3, 2009. Said motion was heard on June 17, 2009, with Atty. Romeo M. Flores in attendance and manifesting before the court that petitioners have vacated the parcel of land in question[.]27
Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
4. Herein respondent himself only came to blow of the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration in June, 2009 when he received a copy of the motion of complainant for issuance of a writ of execution against the FINEZA[S]. This fact was immediately relayed to the FINEZA[S].
....
6. FINEZAS in filing the petition for relief from judgment believe in good faith that they have complied with the requirement of the rule. They learned only of the judgment on June 29, 2009.
Herein RESPONDENT only assisted the FINEZA[S] in filing the petition for relief from judgment. He could not personally act as counsel considering that he has no personal knowledge as to when the FINEZA[S] learned or had knowledge of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration.
Although the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration was received in his office on April 3, 2009, respondent was in the United States of America (U.S.A.) for a 3-month vacation from February 9, 2009 to May, 2009. He had given instructions to his staff to furnish copies of all court processes to his clients and to refer all legal matters to either Atty. Leonardo C. Aseoche or Atty. Baltazar O. Abasolo as collaborating counsels, both practicing lawyers in Binangonan, Rizal.73 (Emphasis supplied)
4. It was only on June 29, 2009 that defendants through their lawyer came to know of the Order dated March 26, 2009[,] denying their "Motion for Reconsideration" of the decision/Order dated January 15, 2009 reversing the Order of Dismissal by the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, Binangonan, Rizal[.]76 (Emphasis supplied)
The allegation of complainant that respondent received on April 31, 2009 the Order of March 26, 2009 denying his motion for reconsideration is not correct. It was the law office through his staff that received on 26 March 2009 the Order of Denial, per Reg. Receipt No. 190. Herein respondent was on vacation in U.S.A. from February 11, 2009 up to June_ , 2009.78 (Emphasis supplied)
Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and demanding, are the professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given full expression in the Lawyer's Oath that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a bonafide member of the Law Profession, thus:I,____________________ , do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice."82 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original, citations omitted)
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Nevertheless, the court interposed clarificatory questions to the petitioners and as a result of the discussion this morning, petitioners' counsel moved for the withdrawal of his Petition for Relieffi'om Judgment after realizing that he erroneously filed the petition before another court and in another case in violation of Section 1 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, on motion of the petitioners through counsel, the Court resolved to consider the instant petition for Relief from Judgment docketed as SCA Case No. 09-015 entitled Ranier [sic] B. Fineza and Teodora B. Fineza versus Pablo B. Francisco filed on July 8, 2009 and raffled to this court on July 13, 2009 as WITHDRAWN, and this case is hereby DISMISSED.85 (Emphasis supplied)
Canon 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
It is axiomatic that when a client is represented by counsel, notice to counsel is notice to client. In the absence of a notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel, the Court will rightly assume that the counsel of record continues to represent his client and receipt of notice by the former is the reckoning point of the reglementary period. As heretofore adverted, the original counsel did not file any notice of withdrawal. Neither was there any intimation by respondent at that time that it was terminating the services of its counsel.96 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-8.
2 Id. at 2. The Complaint for forcible entry was docketed as Civil Case No. 08-001 and was raffled to Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal.
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id. at 9-12, Municipal Trial Court Decision. The Decision, promulgated on June 4, 2008, was penned by Presiding Judge Lillian G. Dinulos-Panontongan of Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal.
5 Id. at 13, Regional Trial Court's Decision. The appeal was docketed as SCA No. 08-018.
6 Id. The Decision, promulgated on August 30, 2008, was penned by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez of Branch 67, Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal.
7 Id. at 14-20.
8 Id. at 29. The Order, promulgated on January 23, 2009, was penned by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez of Branch 67, Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal
9 Id.
10 Id. at 30-33.
11 Id. at 34-35.
12 Id. at 52.
13 Id., back page.
14 Id. at 168, Atty. Pablo B. Francisco's Position Paper.
15 Id. at 53.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 56-58.
18 Id. at 168, Atty. Pablo B. Francisco's Position Paper.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 61-64.
21 Id. at 65-67.
22 Id. at 63, Rainier Fineza and Teodora Fineza's Petition.
23 Id. at 4, Complaint.
24 Id.cralawred
25 Id. at 62.
26 Id. at 169, Atty. Pablo B. Francisco's Position Paper.cralawred
27 Id. at 68-69, Motion to Dismiss.
28 Id. at 169-170, Atty. Pablo B. Francisco's Position Paper.
29 Id. at 85. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Conchita O. Lucero-De Mesa of Branch 70, Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal.
30 Id. at 6, Complaint.
31 Id. at 7.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 170, Atty. Pablo B. Francisco's Position Paper.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 7, Complaint.
37 Id. at 179, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Position Paper.
38 Id. at 177.
39 Id. at 178.cralawred
40 Id. at 178-179.
41 Id. at 179.
42 Id. at 182, Regional Trial Court Resolution in Civil Case No. 384-B.
43 Id. at 179, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Position Paper.
44 Id. at 199-201. The Report and Recommendation, dated April 15, 2011, was penned by Atty. Salvador B. Hababag, Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
45 Id. at 201, Commission on Bar Discipline's Report and Recommendation
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 198. The Resolution is docketed as Resolution No. XX-2013-695.
53 Id. at 202-203.
54 Id. at 204-207.
55 Id. at 205. The date was left blank in the Motion for Reconsideration.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 52, back page of the Regional Trial Court's Order.
58 Id. at 205, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Motion for Reconsideration.
59 Id.
60 Id. at 206.
61 Id. at 205.
62 Id. at 206. Atty. Francisco filed a civil case for forcible entry against the Finezas before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal. A copy of the Decision in the forcible entry case is attached to the rollo (Id. at 9-12).
63 Id., Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Motion for Reconsideration.
64 Id. at 216. The Order was dated November 15, 2013.
65 Id. at 217-219.
66 Id. at 217.
67 Id. at 218.
68 Id. at 219.
69 Id. at 218-219,
70 Id. at 219.
71 Id. at 224. The Resolution was docketed as Resolution No. XXI-2014-466.
72 Id.
73 Id. at 178-179, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Position Paper.
74 Id. at 58, Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution.
75 Id. at 179, Arty. Romeo M. Flores' Position Paper.
76 Id. at 62, Rainier Fineza and Teodora Fineza's Petition.
77 Id. at 168, Atty. Pablo B. Francisco's Position Paper.
78 Id. at 212, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Motion for Reconsideration.
79 Id. at 179, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Position Paper.
80 Id. at 205, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Motion for Reconsideration.
81 A.C. No. 10451, February 4, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/10451.pdf> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
82 Id. at 5-6. See also Bernardino v. Santos, A.C. No. 10583, February 18, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/10583.pdf>
12-13 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] and Villahermosa, Sr. v. Caracol, A.C. No. 7325 January 21 2015 5-6 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
83Rollo, pp. 178-179, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Position Paper.
84 Id. at 85, Regional Trial Court's Order.
85 Id.
86 RULES OF COURT, Rule 38, sec. 1 provides:
RULE 38. Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings
SECTION. 1. Petition for Relief from Judgment, Order, or Other Proceedings. — When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
87Rollo, p. 179, Atty. Romeo M. Flores' Position Paper
88 Id.
89 Id. at 178-179.
90 Id. at 179.
91 552 Phil. 226 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
92 Id. at 230-231.
93 Id. at 232.
94 Id.
95 Id. at 244.
96 Id. at 233.
97 Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo, A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/10537pdf>
[Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
98 Id. at 7.
99 479 Phil. 316 (2004) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division!
100 Id. at 318.
101 Id. at 321.