SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016
IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA- PRESENT: GR.CV NO. 94656, v. ATTY. GIDEON D.V. MORTEL, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves an administrative complaint charging respondent Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel (Atty. Mortel) with disobedience or defiance of lawful court orders, amounting to gross misconduct and insubordination or disrespect.1 The complaint arose from the proceedings before the Court of Appeals in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Angelita De Jesus, through her Attorney-in-Fact Jim Dulay,2 which Atty. Mortel handles.3chanrobleslaw
On July 20, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a Notice4 for Atty. Mortel to file an appellant's brief on behalf of his client, Angelita De Jesus,5 within the reglementary period of 45 days from notice.6chanrobleslaw
Atty. Mortel recently moved out of his office at Herrera Tower, Makati City due to the high cost of maintenance.7 Looking for a new office,8 he requested to use the address of his friend's law firm as his address on record for Bank of the Philippine Islands9 Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose (Atty. Jose), Managing Partner of MFV Jose Law Office, granted this request sometime in August 2010.10 Atty. Morte Fs address on record was then listed at Unit 2106, Philippine AXA Life Center, 1286 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City,11 the same address as MFV Jose Law Office.12chanrobleslaw
All communication, court orders, resolutions, notices, or other court processes addressed to MFV Jose Law Office were received by the law firm's staff.13 The staff would pass these to the desk of Atty. Jose for monitoring and checking. Atty. Jose would then forward these to the handling lawyer in the office.14 The law firm's messenger, Randy G. Lucero (Lucero), was tasked with informing Atty. Mortel whenever there was a resolution or order pertinent to Bank of Philippine Islands.15chanrobleslaw
Bank of Philippine Islands was not included in MFV Jose Law Office's list or inventory of cases.16 Thus, Atty. Jose "simply attached a piece of paper with notation and instructions on the same, advising [Lucero] ... to forward it to Atty. Mortel."17chanrobleslaw
Initially, Randy De Leon (De Leon), Atty. Mortel's messenger, went to MFV Law Office to inquire if it had received notices for Atty. Mortel.18 None came at that time.19 Thus, De Leon left his number with Lucero, and the two messengers agreed that Lucero would text De Leon should any court notice or order for Atty. Mortel arrive.20chanrobleslaw
On August 16, 2010, instead of heeding the Court of Appeals Notice to file the appellant's brief, Atty. Mortel moved to withdraw Angelita De Jesus' appeal21 in light of an amicable settlement on the disputed property.22 After the Motion to Withdraw Appeal was filed, he stopped communicating with MFV Law Office and instructed De Leon to do the same.23chanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated September 20, 2010, the Court of Appeals directed Atty. Mortel to secure and submit Angelita De Jesus' written conformity to the Motion to Withdraw Appeal within five (5) days from notice.24 Atty. Mortel did not comply.25cralawredchanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated November 11, 2010, the Court of Appeals again directed Atty. Mortel to comply with the September 20, 2010 Resolution and warned him of disciplinary action should he fail to secure and submit Angelita De Jesus' written conformity to the Motion within the reglementary period.26 Atty. Mortel did not comply.27chanrobleslaw
Thus, on'February 23, 2011, the Court of Appeals resolved to "den[y] the motion to withdraw appeal; . . . reiterat[e] the notice dated July 20, 2010, directing [Angelita De Jesus] to file appellant's brief within . . . [45] days from notice; and . . . direc[t] Atty. Mortel to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt for non-compliance with [the Court of Appeals] order."28chanrobleslaw
The February 23, 2011 Resolution was sent to Angelita De Jesus' address on record, but it was returned with the notation "moved out" on the envelope.29chanrobleslaw
On March 28, 2011, the Court of Appeals resolved to direct Atty. Mortel to furnish it with Angelita De Jesus' present and complete address within 10 days from notice. Atty. Mortel did not comply.30chanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated July 5, 2011, the Court of Appeals again ordered Atty. Mortel to inform it of Angelita De Jesus' address within 10 days from notice.31 Atty. Mortel did not comply.32chanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated October 13, 2011, the Court of Appeals directed Atty. Mortel, for the last time, to inform it of Angelita De Jesus' address within 10 days from notice.33 Still, Atty. Mortel did not comply.34chanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated January 10, 2012, the Court of Appeals ordered Atty. Mortel to show cause, within 15 days, why he should not be held in contempt for non-compliance with the Court of Appeals Resolutions.35 Atty. Mortel ignored this.36chanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated May 16, 2012, the Court of Appeals found Atty. Mortel liable for indirect contempt.37 It ordered him to pay PI0,000.00 as fine.38 Atty. Mortel did not pay.39chanrobleslaw
On August 13, 2012, the Court of Appeals resolved to (1) again order Atty. Mortel to pay, within 10 days from notice, the fine of P10,000.00 imposed upon him under the May 16, 2012 Resolution;40 (2) require Atty. Mortel to follow the July 5, 2011 and October 13, 2011 Resolutions that sought information from him as to his client's present address;41 and (3) warn him that failure to comply with the Resolutions within the reglementary period will constrain the Court of Appeals "to impose a more severe sanction against him."42 Atty. Mortel snubbed the directives.43chanrobleslaw
According to the Court of Appeals, the Cashier Division reported that Atty. Mortel still did not pay the fine imposed despite his receipt of the May 16, 2012, August 13, 2012, and October 17/2012 Resolutions.44chanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated April 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals directed Atty. Mortel to show cause why it should not suspend him from legal practice for ignoring its May 16, 2012 Resolution (which fined him for P10,000.00).45 The April 26, 2013 Resolution was sent to his address on record at Unit 2106, Philippine AXA Life Center, 1286 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City,46 as shown in the registry return card.47chanrobleslaw
Despite having ignored 11 Court of Appeals Resolutions,48 Atty. Mortel did not show cause for him not to be suspended.49 The Court of Appeals found that his "failure or obstinate refusal without justification or valid reason to comply with the [Court of Appeals'] directives constitutes disobedience or defiance of the lawful orders of [the Court of Appeals], amounting to gross misconduct and insubordination or disrespect."50chanrobleslaw
In the Resolution dated August 14, 2013, the Court of Appeals suspended Atty. Mortel from legal practice for six (6) months and gave him a stern warning against repeating his actions.51 Atty. Mortel was also directed to comply with the previous Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel, counsel for respondent-oppositor-appellant, is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.On October 2, 2013, pursuant to Rule 138, Section 2953 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals submitted before this Court a certified true copy of the August 14, 2013 Resolution, which suspended Atty. Mortel from legal practice, together with a statement of facts from which the suspension order was based.54chanrobleslaw
Further, Atty. Mortel is DIRECTED to comply with the May 16, 2012 Resolution and other related Resolutions issued by this Court within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Supreme Court for its information and appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.52 (Emphasis in the original)
....Implicit in Atty. Jose and respondent's arrangement is that Atty. Jose would update respondent should there be any communication sent to respondent through his law firm, and that respondent would regularly check with the law firm if any court-delivered mail arrives for him.86chanrobleslaw
SEC. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
Article III, Section 3(1) of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that:Atty. Jose took hold of this Court's correspondence meant for respondent and read it.97 On February 25, 2014, he look[ed] into the said case [and] noticed that the Resolution . . . was already in the pink form issued by the Supreme Court. [He] saw the word 'suspended' and, upon perusal, saw that [respondent] was now subjected to an administrative case[.]"98chanrobleslaw
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryARTICLE III
Bill of Rights
....
SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Under Article 32 of the Civil Code:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryARTICLE 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary....
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence[.]
[O]n the account of the Honorable Court [of Appeals] in its Resolution dated 14 August 2013 the Court [of Appeals] issued already a "Notice" to file appellant's brief on July 20, 2010 signifying that there was already a notice received by the staff of M V F [sic] Jose Law Office but was not forwarded to the undersigned counsel. This demonstrated that the very first Order issued by the Court [of Appeals] was received by the aforesaid law office but was not forwarded to the undersigned counsel and the same was true to all subsequent Orders or Resolutions issued by the Court of Appealsf.]110 (Emphasis supplied)Respondent dates back his request to use MFV Law Office's address before July 20 2010, while Atty. Jose avows that it happened in August 2010.111 The inconsistent narration of facts shows that one of them did not give a truthful account on the matter.
In Gonzales v. Court of Appeals:121chanrobleslawSimilarly, in this case, respondent did not adequately inquire why he had not received any notice for the filing of Angelita De Jesus' appellant's brief."123 He should have assumed that the Court of Appeals would send him a notice regarding his appeal. Yet, he instructed De Leon to go to MFV Law Office only initially,124 and cut contact with the law firm after August 16, 2010.125chanrobleslaw
We hold that an attorney owes it to himself and to his clients to adopt an efficient and orderly system of receiving and attending promptly to all judicial notices. He and his client must suffer the consequences of his failure to do so particularly where such negligence is not excusable as in the case at bar."...
Aside from his failure to adopt an organized and efficient system of managing his files and court notices, we also note that petitioner's counsel, Atty. Almadro, allowed one year to lapse before he again acted on the appeal of his client. . . . Subsequently, the notice to file the appellant's brief was received by the househelp of Atty. Almadro, petitioner's counsel, on February 21, 1996. It was only on July 11, 1996 that Atty. Almadro claims to have discovered the notice. . . . Atty. Almadro apparently never bothered to check why he had not received any notice for the filing of his client's (appellant's) brief.122
I, do solemnly swear that... I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein . . . 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 these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.An oath is not an empty promise, but a solemn duty. Owing good fidelity to the court, lawyers must afford due respect to "judicial officers and other duly constituted authorities[.]"146 Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(Emphasis supplied)
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION....In Bantolo v. Atty. Castillon Jr.:147
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
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.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, and this deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. Such is the situation in the instant case. We need not delve into the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the contempt case against respondents. Suffice it to say that respondent lawyer's commission of the contumacious acts have been shown and proven, and eventually punished by the lower courts.148 (Emphasis supplied)In its May 16, 2012 Resolution, the Court of Appeals found respondent guilty for indirect contempt of court.149 On top of respondent's punishment for contempt, his willful disobedience of a lawful order of the Court of Appeals is a ground for respondent's removal or suspension.
SEC. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. - A member of the bar may be removed 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 willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.In Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar,150 this Court ordered the lawyer to file a rejoinder within 10 days from notice, but she was able to file only after one (1) year.151 The lawyer was also ordered to comment on the complainant's manifestation, but instead of filing a comment, she submitted a manifestation about four (4) months after.152 Suspending the lawyer for three (3) years, this Court stated that the lawyer's "cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution."153chanrobleslaw
[Respondent's] conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A resolution of this Court 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 therewith not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of our lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.In Richards v. Asoy,151 the lawyer failed to comply with this Court's Resolution requiring him to file a comment and show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned or cited in contempt.158 He was also asked to comply with this Court's other Resolution requiring him to reimburse the complainant within 10 days from notice.159 This Court found that respondent "had gone into hiding and was evading service of pleadings/orders/processes of this Court."160 For the lawyer's grave misconduct, this Court indefinitely suspended him from legal practice.161 When the lawyer later sought to be readmitted to the bar, this Court denied his Petition to be reinstated.162 The lawyer was found to have failed to justify the long delay of nine (9) years in complying with this Court's Resolutions to reimburse complainant:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority. This is especially so, as in the instant case, where respondent even deliberately defied the lawful orders of the Court for him to file his comment on the complaint, thereby transgressing Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due the courts.156 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Respondent's justification for his 9-year belated "compliance" with the order for him to reimburse complainant glaringly speaks of his lack of candor, of his dishonesty, if not defiance of Court orders, qualities that do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. The solemn oath which all lawyers take upon admission to the bar to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of justice is neither a mere formality nor hollow words meant to be taken lightly, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. The lack of any sufficient justification or explanation for the nine-year delay in complying with the Court's July 9, 1987 and March 15, 1988 Resolutions to reimburse complainant betrays a clear and contumacious disregard for the lawful orders of this Court. Such disrespect on the part of respondent constitutes a clear violation of the lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility[.]Here, respondent failed to justify the long delay of at least three (3) years164 in complying with the Court of Appeals Resolutions requiring his client's written conformity to the Motion (2010)165 and information on his client's current address (2011).166chanrobleslaw
. . . .
Respondent denigrates the dignity of his calling by displaying a lack of candor towards this Court. By taking his sweet time to effect reimbursement ... he sent out a strong message that the legal processes and orders of this Court could be treated with disdain or impunity.163 (Citations omitted)
By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.Respondent's actions shatter the dignity of his profession. He exhibited disdain for court orders and processes, as well as a lack of fidelity to the court. In "taking his sweet time to effect"177 compliance with the Court of Appeals Resolutions, he sends the message that he is above the duly constituted judicial authorities of this land, and he looks down on them with condescension. This Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that his acts y constitute gross misconduct and insubordination or disrespect of court.
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes.176 (Citations omitted)
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.In Ong, this Court found that the lawyer violated his duty to his client in failing to update the client on the status of the case.188 The lawyer's incompetence, neglect, and failure to update his client, in addition to his misappropriation of his client's money, led to his disbarment from the practice of law.189chanrobleslaw
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
Failure of Arty. Mortel to comply with the Resolutions of [the Court of Appeals] has prejudiced the right of his client, herein respondent-oppositor-appellant, to a just determination of her cause. His failure or obstinate refusal without justification or valid reason to comply with [the Court of Appeal's] directives constitutes disobedience or defiance of the lawful orders of [the Court of Appeals], amounting to gross misconduct and insubordination or disrespect. The foregoing acts committed by Atty. Mortel are sufficient cause for his suspension pursuant to Sec. 28, in relation to Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rute of Court.190Respondent's "negligence shows a glaring lack of the competence and diligence required of every lawyer."191chanrobleslaw
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 15, Statement of Facts Re: Suspension of Atty. Gideon V. Mortel. This was signed by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2 The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 94656.
3 Id.at 2, Court of Appeals Resolution.
4 CA. INT. RULES, Rule IV, sec. 4(a)(l .6) provides: SEC. 4. Processing of Ordinary Appeals. -(a) In Civil Cases. - ....5Rollo, p. 2.
1.6 Within ten (10) days from completion of the records, issue a notice to file appellant's brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof. The notice shall require that a certified true copy of the appealed decision or order be appended to the brief.
6 Id. at 3.
7 Id. at 33, Omnibus Motion with Profuse Apologies.
8 Id. at 39, Atty. Jose's Affidavit.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 4.
12 Id. at 39.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 41, Lucero's Affidavit.
16 Id. at 39.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 41.
19 Id.
20 id.
21 Id. at 44, Dulay's Affidavit.
22 Id. at 34.
23 Id. at 24, Comment.
24 Id. at 2.
25cralawred Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 2-3.
29 Id. at 3.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id. at 4.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 id.
47 id.
48 Id. at 2-5. The ignored Resolutions are dated September 20, 2010, November 11, 2010, February 23, 2011, March 28, 2011, July 5, 2011, October 13, 2011, January 10, 2012, May 16, 2012, August 13, 2012, October 17,2012, and April 26, 2013.
49 Id. at 5.
50 Id. at 15, Statement of Facts Re: Suspension of Atty. Gideon V. Mortel.
51 Id.at 5.
52 Id. at 5-6.
53 Rules of Court, Rule 138, sec. 29 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 29. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Court of First Instance, further proceedings in Supreme Court, - Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order or suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make full investigation of the facts involved and make such order revoking or extending the suspension, or removing the attorney from his office as such, as the facts warrant.
54Rollo, pp. 7-16.
55 Id. at 18, Resolution dated January 20, 2014.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 39, Atty. Jose's Affidavit.
58 Only the January 20, 2014 Resolution contained the information that Atty. Mortel was suspended by the Court of Appeals (Id. at 19). The Resolution dated February 9, 2015 did not contain this information (Id. at 48).
59Rollo, p. 39.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Id. at 2.
64 Id. at 39.
65 Id.
66 Id. at 41.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id. at 39.
70 Id. at 32-38.
71 Id. at 37.
72 Id. at 32.
73 Id. at 20-27'-A.
74 Id. at 20.
75 Id.
76 Id.at21.
77 Id. at 34-35.
78 Id. at 34.
79 Id. at 20.
80 Id.
81 Id. at 48.
82 Id. at 52.
83 RULES OF COURT, Rule 139-B
84 RULES OF COURT, Rule 139-B, sec. 1.
85 RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, sec 30.
86 Id. at 33.
87 Id. at 39.
88 Id. at 2-5. It is common practice for Philippine courts to issue orders or resolutions in sealed envelopes. These 12 envelopes contain the Resolutions dated September 20, 2010, November 11, 2010, February 23, 2011, March 28, 2011, July 5, 2011, October 13, 2011, January 10, 2012, May 16, 2012, August 13, 2012, October 17, 2012, April 26, 2013, and August 14, 2013.
89 Id. at 39.
90 Id. at 33.
91 A total of four (4) years passed between 2010 and 2014. Atty. Mortel made the address request in 2010 (Id. at 40, Atty. Jose Affidavit). He stopped communicating with MFV Jose Law Office after August 16, 2010 (Id. at 24, Comment). Meanwhile, Atty. Jose began to look for Atty. Mortel's number on February 25, 2014 (Id. at 41, Atty. Jose Affidavit).
92Rollo, p. 39.
93 Id.
94 Id. at 41.
95 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 21, rule 21.04 provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryRule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.96Rollo, p. 41.
97 Id. at 39.
98 Id. Emphasis supplied.
99 Id. at 2-4.
100 RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, sec. 30 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
101Rollo, p. 39.
102 Although the records do not show when Atty. Mortel filed the appeal, it certainly happened before July 20, 2010, the date when the Court of Appeals issued the Notice for Atty. Mortel to file an appellant's brief. Under Section 4(a)(l)(1.6) of the Court of Appeals Internal Rules, issuing a notice to file appellant's brief means that the appellate court has already received the appeal.
103Rollo, p. 34.
104 In this hypothetical scenario, this would be the date when Atty. Mortel's request was granted by MFV Law Office.
105Rollo, p. 24.
106 Id. at 34.
107 Id. at 3.
108 Section 4(a)(l)(1.6) of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals states that as soon as the Court of Appeals receives appellant's appeal, the Civil Cases Section of the Judicial Records Division shall, within ten (10) days from completion of the records, issue a notice to file appellant's brief within forty- five (45) days from receipt thereof.
109Rollo, pp. 27-28.
110 Id.
111 Id. at 39.
112 Id. at 24.
113 Id. at 24.
114 Id. at 41.
115 Id.
116 Id. at 42. According to Lucero, after not receiving any reply from De Leon, he assumed that the latter changed his number.
117 Four (4) years have passed from 2010 to 2014. Atty. Mortel made the address request in 2010 (Id. at 40, Atty. Jose's Affidavit). He stopped communicating with MFV Jose Law Office after August 16, 2010 (Id. at 24, Comment). Meanwhile, Atty. Jose began to look for Atty. Mortel's number on February 25, 2014 (Id. at 41, Atty. Jose's Affidavit).
118Rollo, p. 39.
119 Id. at 41.
120 450 Phil. 296 (2003) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
121 Id. at 302.
122 Id. at 302-303.
123 Id. at 303.
124 Id. at 24.
125 Id.
126 Id. at 23.
127 Id. at 27-A.
128 RULES OF COURT, Rule 50, sec. 3 provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySEC. 3. Withdrawal of appeal. An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court.129Rollo, p. 24.
130 Id.
131 Id. at 26. '
132 RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, sec. 1 provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySECTION 1. Motion defined. —A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading.133 Id., Rule 138, sec. 21 provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySECTION 21. Authority of attorney to appear. —An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may. . . on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires.134Rollo,p.2.
135 Id. at 24.
136 CIVIL CODE, art. 3.
137Rollo, p. 23.
138 Id. at 39.
139 Id. 41.
140 Id. at 21.
141 Id. at 41.
142Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 450 Phil. 296, 302 (2003) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
143 Id.
144Rollo,p. 38.
145Bantolo v. Castillon Jr., 514 Phil. 628, 633 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
146Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit, 528 Phil. 814, 821 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
147 514 Phil. 628 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
148 Id. at 632-633.
149 Id. at 3.
150 559 Phil. 211 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
151 Id. at 223.
152 Id.
153 Id. at 224.
154Rollo, pp. 1-5.
155 450 Phil. 1 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
156 Id. at 12-13.
157 647 Phil. 113 (2010) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
158 Id. at 116.
159 id.
160 id.
161 id.
162 Id. at 122.
163 Id. at 120-121.
164Rollo, p. 33. Atty. Mortel belatedly presented Dulay's Affidavit of Conformity and Compliance (Id. at 44) on March 5, 2014.
165 Id. at 1-3.
166 Id. at 3.
167 Id., citing Court of Appeals' January 10, 2012 Resolution.
168 Id., citing Court of Appeals' May 16, 2012 Resolution.
169 Id., citing Court of Appeals' October 17, 2012 Resolution.
170 Id. at 5-6.
171 Id. at 39.
172 Id. at 32-38.
173Richards v. Asoy, 647 Phil. 113, 121 (2010) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
174 477 Phil. 569 (2004) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
175 Id. at 572.
176 Id.at575.
177Richards v. Asoy, 647 Phil. 113, 121 (2010) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
178Flores v. Atty. Mayor Jr., A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015 4 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
179 Id. at 5.
180Rollo, p. 25.
181 Id. at 44.
182 Id. at 25.
183 Id. at 26.
184 Id. at 2-3, citing Court of Appeals' February 13, 2011 Resolution.
185 Id.
186 Id. at 32.
187 Id. at 43.
188 Id. at 5-6.
189 Id. at 3.
190Rollo, p. 5.
191Ong v. Grijaldo, 450 Phil. 1, 9 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc].