Francisco vs. Flores

Notice to counsel is notice to client; a lawyer who fails to act with competence and diligence upon a client’s legal matter, causing the loss of available remedies, violates Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer who makes false or inconsistent statements in court pleadings, or who misuses procedural rules to defeat the ends of justice, violates Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03.

Atty. Pablo B. Francisco and Atty. Romeo M. Flores were opposing counsel in a forcible entry case. After the Regional Trial Court ruled in Atty. Francisco’s favor and denied a motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Flores, Atty. Flores’ clients filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment containing false statements about when they learned of the denial. Atty. Francisco filed an administrative complaint accusing Atty. Flores of dishonesty and negligence.

• The Forcible Entry Case:

  • Atty. Pablo B. Francisco filed a complaint for forcible entry against Rainier Fineza and Teodora Fineza before the Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal (Civil Case No. 08-001). The Finezas were represented by Atty. Romeo M. Flores.
  • The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the complaint, but Atty. Francisco appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal (SCA No. 08-018). After an initial denial, a motion for reconsideration was granted in an Order dated January 23, 2009, reversing the dismissal and ordering the Finezas to vacate and pay rentals.
  • Atty. Flores moved for reconsideration of the January 23, 2009 Order. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion in an Order dated March 26, 2009.

• Receipt of the Denial Order:

  • Registry return receipts show that Atty. Flores received a copy of the March 26, 2009 Order on April 3, 2009. The Finezas received their copy on April 7, 2009; the receipt was signed by Glen Fineza, son of Teodora and brother of Rainier.
  • On April 7, 2009, Atty. Francisco filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Remand Records. On May 20, 2009, a Certification of finality was issued by the Branch Clerk of Court.
  • Atty. Francisco filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution on June 3, 2009, serving a copy personally on Atty. Flores. Atty. Flores and the Finezas attended hearings on the motion on June 17 and 24, 2009. The motion was granted on June 30, 2009, and a writ of execution was issued.

• The Petition for Relief from Judgment:

  • On July 8, 2009, the Finezas filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment (docketed as SCA 09-015) with an application for a temporary restraining order and injunction. The petition was signed by the Finezas themselves, but Atty. Francisco alleged it was prepared by Atty. Flores.
  • The petition contained the following allegations: (a) the Finezas did not receive the March 26, 2009 Order and had no knowledge of it; (b) they only came to know of the order on June 29, 2009 “through their lawyer”; and (c) the petition was filed within 60 days from that date.
  • Atty. Francisco moved to dismiss, arguing that the petition was filed out of time (more than 60 days from April 3 or 7, 2009), that it was filed in a different case (SCA 09-015 instead of SCA 08-018) in violation of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and that the Finezas knew of the denial much earlier because Atty. Flores attended the June 17 hearing and even manifested that the Finezas had vacated the property.
  • Atty. Flores entered his appearance in SCA 09-015 on August 20, 2009. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition in an Order dated August 28, 2009, after Atty. Flores moved to withdraw it upon realizing it was erroneously filed.
  • The Finezas were evicted on February 8, 2010, and their personal properties were levied upon and sold at execution.

• Respondent’s Factual Claims:

  • Atty. Flores claimed he was on vacation from February 9, 2009 until May 2009 (later stated as up to “June _, 2009”). He alleged that only his staff received the March 26 Order and that he personally learned of the denial when he received the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution in June 2009.
  • He asserted that he instructed his staff to refer legal matters to collaborating counsels (Atty. Leonardo C. Aseoche or Atty. Baltazar O. Abasolo) but did not present supporting evidence.
  • He maintained that he merely assisted the Finezas in filing the petition for relief and could not act as counsel because he lacked personal knowledge of when they learned of the denial.

• Violation of Canon 10 (Falsehood and Dishonesty):

  • Atty. Francisco maintained that the allegations in the Petition for Relief from Judgment—that the Finezas had no knowledge of the March 26, 2009 Order and only learned of it on June 29, 2009—were palpably false because both Atty. Flores and the Finezas received copies in early April 2009, and Atty. Flores actively participated in the execution hearings by June 17, 2009.
  • He argued that Atty. Flores knew the petition was frivolous and untruthful yet pursued it by entering his appearance and seeking to file a supplemental pleading, thereby consenting to falsehood in court.

• Violation of Canon 18 (Negligence):

  • Atty. Francisco contended that Atty. Flores was negligent because, after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, he failed to make himself available to discuss and pursue available remedies (such as a petition for review to the Court of Appeals), resulting in the judgment becoming final and executory and the subsequent eviction of his clients.

• Absence and Non-Receipt:

  • Atty. Flores asserted that he was on vacation from early February 2009 until May–June 2009 and that only his staff received the March 26, 2009 Order. He claimed no personal knowledge of the denial until he received the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. He further argued that the allegation that he received the Order on April 31, 2009 (a non-existent date) was incorrect.

• No Falsehood Committed:

  • He argued that he merely assisted the Finezas in filing the petition for relief and did not sign it as counsel because he had no personal knowledge of when they learned of the denial. The statements in the petition reflected the Finezas’ own belief. He also noted that a perjury charge against him arising from the same facts had been dismissed.

• No Negligence:

  • Atty. Flores claimed he was not negligent by pointing to his successful handling of a separate case (Civil Case No. 384-B, for Quieting of Title), where he prevented the demolition of the Finezas’ family home. He also alleged that he instructed his staff to refer legal matters to other lawyers during his absence.

• Violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03: Whether respondent Atty. Flores violated the duties of candor, fairness, and good faith by making or consenting to false allegations in court pleadings, by misusing procedural rules, and by making inconsistent statements during the disciplinary proceedings, concerning the date his clients learned of the denial order and the timeliness of the Petition for Relief from Judgment.

• Violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03: Whether respondent Atty. Flores neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to act with competence and diligence upon the denial of his clients’ motion for reconsideration, thereby causing the loss of available legal remedies and rendering him liable for negligence.

• Violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03:

  • Atty. Flores was found guilty of violating Rule 10.01 (falsehood) and Rule 10.03 (misuse of procedure). His statements regarding when he learned of the denial and when he informed his clients were contradictory: he claimed he learned of the denial in June 2009 and immediately informed the Finezas, yet simultaneously maintained that he had no personal knowledge of when they learned of it. The Petition for Relief itself contained the false assertion that the Finezas only knew of the denial on June 29, 2009, when in fact both he and his clients were aware of it much earlier. The inconsistencies in respondent’s own pleadings—first stating his vacation lasted until May 2009, then extending it to June 2009—further demonstrated untruthfulness.
  • By assisting in the filing of a petition for relief in a different court and under a different docket number, contrary to Rule 38, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, and later moving to withdraw it after realizing the error, respondent misused procedural rules to delay the execution of a final judgment, thereby violating Rule 10.03.

• Violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03:

  • The Court held that Atty. Flores was negligent in violation of Rule 18.03. Under the settled principle that notice to counsel is notice to client, receipt of the March 26, 2009 Order by respondent’s office on April 3, 2009 constituted constructive notice to his clients. Respondent’s vacation did not excuse his failure to ensure that the order would be promptly acted upon; he was duty-bound to prepare for the possibility of adverse rulings during his absence. No evidence was presented that he actually engaged collaborating counsel.
  • Even accepting respondent’s version—that he only learned of the denial upon receiving the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution on June 3, 2009, and that the Finezas learned on June 29, 2009—his delay of more than 20 days in informing his clients constituted a lack of diligence that directly caused the expiration of the 60-day period for a petition for relief from judgment. By failing to immediately consult his clients and pursue available remedies, respondent caused the irreversible loss of their right to challenge the order, warranting a finding of negligence.

• Notice to Counsel is Notice to Client — Absent a formal withdrawal of appearance or substitution of counsel, any notice served on the counsel of record is deemed notice to the client, and the date of receipt by counsel is the reckoning point for the reglementary period. Because Atty. Flores’ office received the denial order on April 3, 2009, the Finezas were deemed notified on that date, rendering the July 8, 2009 petition for relief untimely.

• Negligence under Canon 18, Rule 18.03 — A lawyer’s failure to act with competence and diligence on a legal matter entrusted to him, resulting in the prescription or loss of available remedies, constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03. The duty requires that counsel immediately inform the client of adverse orders and discuss potential remedies; a lawyer’s vacation does not excuse non-compliance.

• Duty of Candor and Prohibition Against Falsehood (Canon 10, Rule 10.01) — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead the court by any artifice. The prohibition extends to untrue allegations in pleadings and to inconsistent statements made in disciplinary proceedings that conceal the true facts.

• Misuse of Procedural Rules (Canon 10, Rule 10.03) — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Filing a petition for relief from judgment in a different court and under a different docket number, contrary to Rule 38, Section 1, and later withdrawing it, constitutes a misuse of procedure that delays the execution of a final judgment.

• “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.” — Opening paragraph of the Resolution, encapsulating the twin infractions.

• “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.” — Quoting Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Inc., applied to hold that the Finezas were deemed notified on April 3, 2009.

• “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. ... 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 …” — From Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera, underscoring the ethical foundation for the finding of dishonesty.

• Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera, A.C. No. 10451, February 4, 2015 — Extensive discussion of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and the Lawyer’s Oath; used to support the finding that respondent violated the duty of candor by making false statements.

• Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Inc., 552 Phil. 226 (2007) — Controlling precedent for the rule that notice to counsel is notice to client; applied to deem the Finezas chargeable with knowledge from the date respondent’s office received the order.

• Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo, A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015 — Parallel case where a lawyer was found guilty under Rule 18.03 for failure to file an appellant’s brief, causing loss of remedies; used to reinforce the finding of negligence.

• Serzo v. Atty. Flores, 479 Phil. 316 (2004) — Prior disciplinary case against the same respondent, where he was suspended for two years for notarizing a deed of sale when the vendor was deceased; taken judicial notice to evidence a pattern of professional misconduct aggravating the present penalty.

• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10, 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.” Applied because respondent made and consented to false allegations regarding the date of receipt of the order.

• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10, Rule 10.03 — “A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.” Applied because respondent filed the petition for relief in a different court and docket number, later withdrawing it, thus misusing procedural rules.

• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 — “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” Applied because respondent failed to act on the denial order, inform his clients, and protect their interests within the reglementary period.

• Rules of Court, Rule 38, Section 1 — “When a judgment or final order is entered … [a party] may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.” Respondent’s erroneous filing in a different case constituted a misuse of procedural rules, supporting the Rule 10.03 violation.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno; Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Francis H. Jardeleza. No separate concurring opinions were registered.