Perea vs. Almadro

A lawyer who neglects to file a pleading he was granted leave to file, fails to keep his client informed of case developments, and then attempts to mislead the court with a fabricated explanation is guilty of violating Canon 18 (Rules 18.03 and 18.04) and Canon 10 (Rule 10.01) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and a fine.

Edgar O. Perea was charged with Frustrated Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 99. Atty. Ruben Almadro served as his collaborating counsel, with Atty. Solomon Villanueva as lead counsel. The administrative complaint arose from respondent's handling of the defense, specifically his failure to file a demurrer to evidence after the trial court granted him leave to do so, and the subsequent attempt to explain away that failure with a fabricated account.

Edgar O. Perea was charged with Frustrated Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 99, where Atty. Ruben Almadro served as his collaborating counsel, with Atty. Solomon Villanueva as lead counsel. On February 26, 1996, the RTC issued an order granting Atty. Almadro's motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence within ten days from that date. Complainant believed that respondent had filed the demurrer and that the case against him had been dismissed.

It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant learned that respondent had failed to file any demurrer. The trial court thereafter ordered complainant to present evidence in his defense, and a warrant was issued for his arrest, prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail. Complainant claimed that respondent had not attended any of his hearings and that he pleaded with respondent to withdraw formally as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Complainant asserted that he suffered financially and emotionally due to respondent's neglect and was now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood.

In his Answer, respondent offered a different account. He stated that two days after the RTC granted the motion for leave to file the demurrer, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading and stored them in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to submission. A few days before the deadline, he tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette but could not find it despite efforts to do so. This led him to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed, since it was his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts that were already finalized and acted upon. He further explained that the presiding judge of the RTC retired, as a consequence of which actions on pending cases were held in abeyance, and that communications with complainant had become rarer. From the end of 1997 through the first five months of 1998, respondent was preoccupied with the congressional elections in Biliran, where he ran and lost. He was then offered and accepted a position at the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance Division, and his time and attention were spent on that demanding job as well as on the preparation of his testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with the "BW" scam. He claimed he offered on several occasions to withdraw as counsel, even offering to return his acceptance fee, which complainant refused. He denied that complainant pleaded with him to withdraw, asserting it was complainant who refused to let him go. He also clarified that he was merely a collaborating counsel, not lead counsel. Finally, he stated he was mulling over the possible procedural steps to take regarding complainant's case when he received the disbarment complaint instead.

The IBP investigation revealed that respondent's explanation was not credible. The IBP Commissioner found that respondent's counsels, Sua and Alambra, had deliberately misrepresented to the Court that respondent had not received a copy of the complaint, when in fact respondent's own second motion for extension stated he was reviewing an initial draft of his comment. The IBP also verified the records of the criminal case before RTC-Branch 99 and found an order declaring respondent in contempt of court for repeatedly failing to submit an explanation as ordered by the court. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner's report with modification, reducing the recommended suspension from two years to one year while retaining the P10,000 fine.

• Gross Neglect of Duties: Complainant maintained that respondent failed to file the demurrer to evidence despite having been granted leave to do so, leaving complainant to believe the case had been dismissed when in fact no demurrer was ever filed.
• Failure to Attend Hearings: Complainant alleged that respondent had not attended any of his hearings, prompting complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw formally as counsel so he could engage another lawyer.
• Damages Suffered: Complainant asserted that he suffered financially and emotionally due to respondent's neglect, and that he was now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood.

• Lost Computer Draft: Respondent argued that he had finished the draft of the demurrer and stored it in a magnetic computer diskette, but the draft was lost and could not be retrieved despite efforts, leading him to believe the finalized versions had already been filed in court.
• External Distractions: Respondent maintained that the presiding judge's retirement delayed action on pending cases, that communications with complainant became rarer, that he was preoccupied with congressional elections in Biliran, and that his demanding position at the Philippine Stock Exchange and testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee consumed his time and attention.
• Offer to Withdraw: Respondent contended that he offered on several occasions to withdraw as counsel, even offering to return his acceptance fee, but complainant refused, and that it was complainant who refused to let him go — not the other way around.
• Collaborating Counsel Only: Respondent asserted that he was merely a collaborating counsel in the criminal case, the lead counsel being Atty. Solomon Villanueva.
• Pending Deliberation: Respondent claimed he was actually mulling over the possible procedural steps to take regarding complainant's case when he received the disbarment complaint instead.

• Neglect of Duty: Whether respondent is guilty of neglecting his duties as counsel in violation of Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Falsehood Before the Court: Whether respondent is guilty of attempting to mislead the Court with a fabricated explanation, in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Appropriate Penalty: What penalty should be imposed on respondent for the foregoing violations.

• Neglect of Duty: Yes. Respondent failed to file the demurrer to evidence he was granted leave to file and failed to keep his client informed of case developments, violating Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Falsehood Before the Court: Yes. Respondent's story about the lost computer diskette and his belief that the demurrer had been filed was a deliberate falsehood that made a mockery of the Court, violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01.
• Appropriate Penalty: Suspension from the practice of law for one year and a fine of P10,000, with a warning that any similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.

• Neglect of Duty: The records plainly showed that respondent failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had sought and obtained permission from the trial court, and on which his client was relying. Beyond that, he failed to contact his client and apprise him of developments, leaving complainant completely surprised and unprotected when the trial court ordered him to present defense evidence and later issued a warrant for his arrest. The Court relied on 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 Rule 18.04 (a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case). Citing Sps. Galen vs. Atty. Paguirigan, the Court reiterated that a failure to file a pleading for a client constitutes inexcusable negligence and a serious lapse in the duty owed both to the client and to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice. A lawyer who agrees to take up a cause owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability.

• Falsehood Before the Court: Respondent's negligence was compounded by his attempt to make the Court believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of the file led him to believe the demurrer had been filed. The IBP had observed that as a solo practitioner, respondent would have read and signed the demurrer before it was filed, and would have printed a hard copy for review; the story was described as "pure unadulterated garbage" and "outrageous." The Court found this behavior contemptuous, as it made a mockery of the Court. Canon 10 (a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court) and Rule 10.01 (a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice) were directly violated. Citing Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs Atty. Flores, the Court emphasized that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth and must observe honesty at all times, especially before the courts.

• Appropriate Penalty: The Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors' modified recommendation, finding suspension for one year and a fine of P10,000 appropriate given that respondent's actuations revealed not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties as a lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents. The Court further warned that any similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely. The contempt proceedings against Attys. Sua and Alambra for their misrepresentation were remanded to the IBP for further action.

• Duty of Competence and Diligence (Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04) — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence, shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him (and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable), and shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that respondent's failure to file the demurrer he was granted leave to file, coupled with his failure to communicate with his client about case developments, constituted gross neglect of duty. A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability.

• Duty of Candor and Good Faith to the Court (Canon 10, Rule 10.01) — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court, and shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that respondent's fabricated story about the lost computer diskette and his claim that he believed the demurrer had been filed constituted a deliberate falsehood that made a mockery of the Court. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth and must observe honesty at all times, especially before the courts.

• "An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part." — This passage, quoted from Sps. Galen vs. Atty. Paguirigan, articulates the standard of diligence required of counsel and the consequence of neglecting a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer.

• "A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service is entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted devotion to his client's cause." — This passage defines the dual standard of competence and devotion owed by a lawyer to a client, reinforcing that neglect of a legal matter renders the lawyer liable for disciplinary action.

• "Indeed, it cannot be stressed enough how important it is for a lawyer as an officer of the court to observe honesty at all times, especially before the courts." — This passage underscores the Court's emphasis on the lawyer's duty of candor and truthfulness as an officer of the court, central to the finding that respondent violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01.

• "Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor." — This passage captures the Court's disposition toward respondent's attempt to mislead the tribunal with a fabricated explanation, justifying the imposition of both suspension and fine.

• Sps. Galen vs. Atty. Paguirigan, A.C. No. 5558, March 7, 2002 — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that a failure to file a pleading for a client constitutes inexcusable negligence and a serious lapse in the duty owed to both the client and the Court. The case established that a lawyer must serve the client with competence and diligence and exert best efforts to protect the client's interest.

• Tan vs. Atty. Lapak, G.R. No. 93707, 350 SCRA 74 (2001) — Followed. Cited for the principle that once a lawyer agrees to take up a cause, he owes fidelity to that cause and must serve the client with competence and diligence, championing the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Also cited for the principle that a client is entitled to the benefit of every remedy and defense authorized by law.

• Atty. Navarro vs. Atty. Meneses, CBD A.C. No. 313, 285 SCRA 586 (1998) — Followed. Cited alongside Tan vs. Atty. Lapak for the same principle regarding a lawyer's duty of fidelity and devotion to the client's cause.

• Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs Atty. Flores, A.C. No. 4158, 287 SCRA 449 (March 12, 1998) — Followed. Cited for the principle that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth, reinforcing the duty of candor and honesty before the courts under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Applied to find that respondent's failure to file the demurrer and failure to inform his client of case developments constituted neglect of duty.

• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Applied to hold respondent liable for failing to file the demurrer to evidence he was granted leave to file.

• Rule 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that 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. Applied to respondent's failure to contact his client and apprise him of developments.

• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Applied to respondent's fabricated story about the lost computer diskette.

• Rule 10.01, 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. Applied to respondent's attempt to mislead the Court with his explanation.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concurred.