Endaya vs. Oca

A lawyer who undertakes a client's cause must serve it with competence, diligence and zeal to its conclusion and may not abandon required pleadings on a personal belief that filing would be futile or repetitive. Neglect of court-ordered affidavits, position paper and appeal memorandum, failure to inform the court of an intent not to file, and untruthfulness to the client violate the lawyer's oath and Canons 12, 17, 18 and 19, warranting suspension.

Artemio Endaya and his spouse Patrosenia Endaya were lay defendants in an unlawful detainer action concerning land under a verbal lease. Atty. Wilfredo Oca was the Public Attorney's Office lawyer assigned to represent them. The Public Attorney's Office is a government entity mandated to provide free and competent legal assistance to indigents and low-income persons, and lawyers in government service remain bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On November 7, 1991, Apolonia H. Hornilla, Pedro Hernandez, Santiago Hernandez and Dominador Hernandez filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Artemio Endaya and his spouse Patrosenia Endaya with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo, Batangas, docketed as Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T. On December 13, 1991, the spouses filed an answer prepared by a certain Mr. Isaias Ramirez. At the preliminary conference on January 17, 1992, which they attended without counsel, complainant categorically admitted that plaintiffs were the declared owners for taxation purposes of the land involved, and continuation was set on January 31, 1992.

Thereafter complainant sought the services of the Public Attorney's Office in Batangas City, and respondent was assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of the preliminary conference, respondent appeared as counsel and moved for amendment of the previously filed answer, but the motion was denied. Acting Judge Teodoro M. Baral then ordered the parties to submit affidavits and position papers within ten days from receipt, after which judgment would be rendered thirty days after receipt of the last pleading or upon expiration of the period.

Respondent failed to submit the required affidavits and position paper, as noted in the MCTC Decision dated March 19, 1992 stating that only plaintiffs submitted them. Nonetheless the MCTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had no legal capacity to sue as they were not the real parties-in-interest and there was no privity of contract as to the verbal lease. On appeal, docketed as Civil Case No. 3378, the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 1, directed the parties on April 10, 1992 to file memoranda. Respondent again filed nothing, prompting the RTC in its Decision dated September 7, 1992 to consider the case submitted for decision.

The RTC reversed, holding plaintiffs were co-owners and parties-in-interest, the verbal lease was month-to-month terminable at the end of any given month upon proper notice, and defendants incurred rentals in arrears. It ordered Artemio and Patrosenia Endaya and all persons claiming under them to vacate and dismantle their house at their own expense, to pay monthly rental of P25.00 from January 1991 to November 1991 and P1,000.00 monthly from December 1991 until vacating, plus P10,000.00 attorney's fees. Complainant received a copy on October 7, 1992 and confronted respondent two days later on October 9, 1992, but respondent denied receipt, although inquiry with the Branch Clerk revealed respondent had received his copy on September 14, 1992.

According to the prosecution version implicit in the record, respondent's inaction denied the spouses the opportunity to present their cause and caused loss of the case. Respondent, for his part, maintained his appearance was only to seek leave to file an amended answer, that he asked to be relieved when denied, and that complainant failed to provide promised supporting documents. On January 12, 1993, complainant filed the present administrative complaint. The Office of the Bar Confidant found negligence but noted complainant's unrebutted failure to submit promised documents, while the IBP investigator, complainant having never appeared and respondent having presented no evidence, decided on the pleadings and concurred in the finding of negligence.

• Failure to File Required Pleadings: Complainant contended that respondent committed professional delinquency consisting of failure to file the required pleadings in behalf of complainant and his spouse, and that due to respondent's inaction he lost the opportunity to present his cause and ultimately the case itself.
• Reiteration on Reply: Complainant merely reiterated the allegations in the Complaint in his Reply filed pursuant to the Resolution dated May 10, 1993.

• Limited Engagement and Request for Relief: Respondent denied professional misconduct, stressing he was not the original counsel and that he agreed to appear at the continuation of the preliminary conference for the sole purpose of asking leave to file an amended answer because he believed the answer was prepared by a non-lawyer; upon discovering it was the work of a lawyer, he forthwith asked to be relieved but was denied.
• Absence of Supporting Documents and Futility: Respondent argued that he agreed to file the position paper upon complainant's undertaking to provide documents proving plaintiffs were not owners, and that complainant reneged, so he deemed it more prudent not to file any position paper or appeal memorandum as it would be a repetition of the answer; he asserted he fully explained his stand to complainant.
• Good Faith Non-Filing of Rejoinder: Respondent admitted receiving the resolution requiring a rejoinder but asserted he purposely did not file because he believed in good faith it was no longer necessary, professing no intent to cast disrespect upon the Court.

• Neglect and Breach of Professional Duties: Whether respondent violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file the MCTC affidavits and position paper, the RTC appeal memorandum, and the rejoinder, and by misleading his client about the adverse decision.
• Mitigation and Penalty: Whether mitigating circumstances, including complainant's fault and PAO caseload, affect liability and what penalty is proper for the misconduct.

• Neglect and Breach of Professional Duties: Yes. Neglect was established, the failure to file court-ordered pleadings and to inform court and client constituting violations of the oath and Canons 12, 17, 18 and 19 and Rule 18.03.
• Mitigation and Penalty: Yes in part. Mitigation was recognized but did not exonerate, so two months suspension from practice with warning was imposed pursuant to sound judicial discretion.

• Neglect and Breach of Professional Duties: Once counsel takes a client's cause, exertion of all effort until final conclusion is covenanted, and counsel remains of record until the relationship is terminated by client or counsel with court permission. Respondent's explanation that engagement was limited to one incident was rejected as dishonest, and amendment of the answer was in any event a prohibited pleading under Summary Procedure. Despite orders to file, nothing was filed and no manifestation of intent not to file was made, delaying disposition, particularly the RTC's three-month wait after June 5, 1992; the MCTC non-filing was per se violative of Rule 18.03 even without prejudice, while the RTC non-filing denied a fair fight and squandered the MCTC victory, breaching Canon 19. The excuse of missing documents was unsustainable because respondent admitted receiving a barangay officials' affidavit that could have bolstered the real-party-in-interest defense, whose probative value was for the court, and denial of knowledge of the September 14, 1992 receipt when confronted October 9, 1992 breached Canon 17 fidelity, with heightened duty as PAO counsel under Canon 6.
• Mitigation and Penalty: Penalty was fixed in the exercise of sound discretion by comparison with reprimand, fine, three-month, six-month and disbarment precedents. Repeated remissness at MCTC, RTC and Supreme Court levels, mockery of court authority, and evasion of responsibility warranted suspension. Extenuation was found in complainant's misrepresentation that the answer was by a non-lawyer, assurance of strong evidence with only the barangay affidavit produced, and public knowledge of heavy PAO caseload, reducing the sanction from the recommended severity to two months with warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely.

• Competence and Diligence — Canon 18 mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence, springing from the oath to act with all good fidelity to courts and clients. Applied to condemn respondent's disappearance after the second preliminary conference and total failure to file ordered pleadings.
• Neglect of Legal Matter — Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and negligence renders him liable. Applied to hold the MCTC non-filing a per se violation even though clients still prevailed there, and the RTC non-filing actionable negligence causing loss.
• Zealous Representation Within Bounds of Law — Canon 19 requires representation with zeal, exerting all efforts to avail of remedies allowed by law. Applied to find respondent put up no fight and forfeited the advantage gained at MCTC level.
• Duty to Assist Speedy Administration of Justice — Canon 12 obligates exertion of every effort to assist speedy and efficient administration of justice, including prompt manifestation of intent not to file to avoid delay. Applied to the three-month RTC delay caused by silence.
• Fidelity and Candor to Client — Canon 17 provides a lawyer owes fidelity to the client's cause, mindful of trust reposed. Applied to the untruthful denial of receipt of the RTC decision to evade responsibility.
• Continuity of Counsel and Full Attention Regardless of Fee — Once a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants to exert all effort until final conclusion; every case accepted deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence whether for fee or free, per Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, Santiago vs. Fojas, and Orcino vs. Gaspar; counsel remains of record until termination with court permission. Applied to reject limited-engagement and futility justifications.
• Government Lawyers Bound by Canons — Canon 6 makes the canons applicable to lawyers in government service, who as public servants owe utmost fidelity to public service per Vitriola vs. Dasig. Applied to heighten respondent's duty as PAO counsel for indigents.

• "It should be remembered that the moment a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion." — States the continuity-of-counsel rule from Legarda vs. Court of Appeals relied upon to reject respondent's claim of limited appearance.
• "every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts if for a fee or for free." — Defines the diligence standard from Santiago vs. Fojas applied to PAO representation undertaken for free.
• "A lawyer's devotion to his client's cause not only requires but also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter's cause to succeed." — Articulates the zealous-advocacy ideal from Miraflor vs. Hagad used to find respondent abandoned any fair fight.

• Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, 10 June 1992, 209 SCRA 722 — Followed as controlling on covenant to exert all effort until final conclusion; unworthy trust if diligence abandoned.
• Santiago vs. Fojas, A.C. No. 4103, 7 Sept. 1995, 248 SCRA 68 — Followed for full attention regardless of importance or fee; also cited for penalty of reprimand in similar cases and for prestige of bar.
• Orcino vs. Gaspar, 344 Phil. 792, 800-801 (1997) — Followed for rule that lawyer remains counsel of record until relationship terminated with court permission.
• Miraflor vs. Hagad, 244 SCRA 106 — Quoted for duty to deploy every honorable means for client's cause; used to show respondent employed no such means.
• Vitriolo vs. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003 — Followed for nature of lawyer's oath and heightened fidelity of government lawyers; also cited for penalty considerations.
• Bergonia vs. Merrera, A.C. No. 5024, 20 Feb. 2003 — Followed to require formal prompt manifestation of intent not to file to prevent delay.
• Diaz-Duarte vs. Ong, 298 SCRA 388; Macapagal vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 491 — Cited by Bar Confidant for client bound by counsel negligence and for complainant's contributory neglect in failing to furnish promised documents.
• Ford vs. Daitol, 320 Phil. 53 (1995); Basas vs. Icawat, A.C. No. 4282, 24 Aug. 2000, 338 SCRA 648; Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilabon, 337 Phil. 555 (1997); Mariveles vs. Mallari, A.C. No. 3294, 219 SCRA 44; Vda. De Oribiana vs. Gerio, A.C. No. 1582, 88 SCRA 586 — Cited as penalty comparators ranging from reprimand and fine to three-month, six-month suspension and disbarment in aggravated cases.

• Lawyer's Oath, Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Rules of Court — Requires conduct with all good fidelity to courts and clients; breached by repeated disobedience to orders and abandonment of clients.
• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates competent and diligent service; violated by failure to file affidavits, position paper and memorandum.
• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits neglect of entrusted legal matter; violated per se by MCTC non-filing and prejudicially by RTC non-filing.
• Canon 19, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires zealous representation within bounds of law; violated by failure to avail of remedies and forfeiture of MCTC victory.
• Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires assistance in speedy and efficient administration of justice; violated by silent non-filing delaying RTC judgment.
• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires fidelity and mindfulness of trust; violated by denial of knowledge of RTC decision.
• Canon 6, Code of Professional Responsibility — Applies canons to government lawyers; heightened respondent's duty as PAO lawyer under Integrated Reorganization Plan and Presidential Decree No. 1725.
• Sections 2 and 4, Rules on Summary Procedure — Allow only complaint and answer and prohibit amended answer; showed respondent's proposed amendment was procedurally improper.

Bellosillo, Chairman, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur. No separate concurring opinions were issued.