Re: CA-G.R. CV No. 96282 — Partoza vs. Santamaria

A lawyer's deliberate and repeated failure to comply with lawful orders of a superior court constitutes willful disobedience under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, warranting suspension from the practice of law, as such conduct demonstrates not only reprehensible behavior but utter disrespect for the court and its processes.

Spouses Bayani and Myrna M. Partoza filed a civil action for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, Reconveyance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-710729 and Damages against Lilia B. Montano and Amelia T. Solomon, docketed as Civil Case No. N-7918 before the Regional Trial Court. The RTC dismissed the case on October 28, 2010. The spouses, then residing abroad (in Germany at the relevant time), were initially represented by Atty. Samson D. Villanueva, who filed their Notice of Appeal on November 25, 2010. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 96282. Respondent Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria was later engaged by the spouses to handle the appeal, and the administrative case against him stems from his conduct as substitute counsel before the Court of Appeals.

Spouses Bayani and Myrna M. Partoza filed a civil action for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, Reconveyance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-710729 and Damages against Lilia B. Montano and Amelia T. Solomon, docketed as Civil Case No. N-7918 before the Regional Trial Court. The RTC dismissed the case on October 28, 2010. Counsel of record Atty. Samson D. Villanueva filed a Notice of Appeal on November 25, 2010, and the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 96282. On March 25, 2011, the CA issued a Notice requiring the submission of the Appellant's Brief pursuant to Rule 44, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On April 27, 2011, Atty. Villanueva filed a Withdrawal of Appearance, carrying the conformity of the appellants' attorney-in-fact, Honnie M. Partoza, who on the same occasion acknowledged receipt of the entire records of the case. A Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief dated May 19, 2011 was also filed. Thereafter, respondent Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria submitted an Appellant's Brief dated July 4, 2011.

On August 4, 2011, the CA directed Atty. Villanueva to submit proof of authority of Honnie to represent the appellants as their attorney-in-fact and the latter's conformity to the withdrawal of appearance. In the same resolution, the CA required respondent to submit his formal Entry of Appearance as counsel for appellants, to secure and submit the written conformity of his clients to his appearance, and to furnish the court with the assailed RTC Decision that should have been appended to the Appellant's Brief — all within five days from notice. Atty. Villanueva filed a Manifestation with Motion dated August 31, 2011 explaining that he had communicated with Honnie and the appellants but was informed they were residing abroad (in Germany at the time), and he requested 15 days or until September 15, 2011 to comply.

On March 20, 2012, the CA granted Atty. Villanueva's manifestation but ordered him to show cause within 10 days from notice why he should not be cited in contempt for failing to comply with the August 4, 2011 Resolution, and why the Appellant's Brief filed by respondent should not be expunged and the appeal dismissed. On September 5, 2012, the CA noted that respondent had received the March 20, 2012 Resolution (as shown by the Registry Return Receipt dated April 4, 2012), that the Judicial Records Division reported no compliance had been filed as of June 19, 2012, and directed respondent for the last time to comply within five days and to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. All these directives were ignored by respondent.

On October 25, 2012, the CA cited respondent in contempt of court and imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00, and again directed him to comply with the requirements of valid substitution of counsel and to file his formal Entry of Appearance within five days, and to show cause why the Appellant's Brief should not be expunged and the appeal dismissed. Respondent paid no heed to this resolution either. On September 17, 2013, the CA referred respondent's unlawyerly acts to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. In his Answer of November 13, 2013, respondent contended that he had relied on Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal of Appearance in preparing the Appellant's Brief, was not aware of Honnie's authority or conformity, and believed he had no personality to represent the spouses Partoza or to address the compliance requirements. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for willful disobedience and recommended a six-month suspension, a recommendation adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration was filed by either party, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final action.

• Reliance on Prior Counsel's Withdrawal: Respondent contended that he relied on the Withdrawal of Appearance filed by Atty. Villanueva and then prepared the Appellant's Brief on that basis.
• Lack of Awareness of Attorney-in-Fact's Authority: Respondent argued that he was not aware of the authority of Honnie M. Partoza to represent the spouses Partoza as their attorney-in-fact, nor of Honnie's conformity to Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal of Appearance.
• Lack of Personality to Represent Clients: Respondent maintained that he believed he had no personality to represent the spouses Partoza in the case or to address the problems and compliances pertaining to the appeal, and that it was still Atty. Villanueva who should have continued to represent them.
• Client Engagement Circumstances: Respondent stated that the spouses Partoza sought his opinion regarding their case and later requested that he handle their appeal before the CA, and that he advised them to inform Atty. Villanueva of their decision to engage new counsel.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent is administratively liable for willfully disobeying the lawful orders of the Court of Appeals.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was found administratively liable for willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and was suspended from the practice of law for six months.

• Administrative Liability: The Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors' findings of fact and recommended penalty. There was no dispute that respondent failed to comply with five CA Resolutions — dated August 4, 2011, March 20, 2012, September 5, 2012, and October 25, 2012 — despite due notice. His actions were contumacious, displaying not only reprehensible conduct but an utter lack of respect for the CA and its orders. A resolution issued by the CA or any court is not a mere request that may be complied with partially or selectively. Lawyers, as officers of the court, are duty-bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court pursuant to Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Section 27, Rule 138 expressly provides that willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension. Respondent's defense that he believed he had no personality to represent the clients was rejected; the Investigating Commissioner noted that even granting he was unaware of the problem between Atty. Villanueva and Honnie, he could have explained this by complying with the court resolutions rather than ignoring them. The compliances required — formal Entry of Appearance, written conformity of clients, and the assailed RTC Decision — are provided under the rules for valid substitution of counsel and validity of the appeal and may not be disregarded. The Court found the six-month suspension commensurate under the circumstances, citing a prior case where a lawyer was suspended for one year for ignoring twelve CA resolutions.

• Willful Disobedience as Ground for Suspension — Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be suspended or disbarred for "willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court." The Court applied this provision to respondent's repeated failure to comply with five CA Resolutions despite due notice, holding that such conduct constitutes willful disobedience warranting a six-month suspension from the practice of law.
• Lawyer's Duty to the Court — A lawyer's first and primary duty is not to the client but to the administration of justice. As an officer of the court, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action. This principle, drawn from Sabado vs. Villaruel, Jr., underscores that lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, and willful disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well.
• Court Orders Are Not Mere Requests — A resolution issued by the CA or any court is not a mere request that may be complied with partially or selectively. Lawyers are duty-bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court, and deliberate disregard of court directives betrays a recalcitrant flaw in character and underscores disrespect towards the court's lawful orders deserving of reproof.

• "A recalcitrant lawyer who defies the directives of the court 'must deservedly end in tribulation for the lawyer and in victory for the higher ends of justice.'" — This opening line frames the resolution's central theme: that defiance of court orders by a lawyer warrants disciplinary action in the service of justice.
• "There is no dispute that respondent did not comply with five Resolutions of the CA. His actions were definitely contumacious. By his repeated failure, refusal or inability to comply with the [CA] resolutions, respondent displayed not only reprehensible conduct but showed an utter lack of respect for the CA and its orders." — This passage states the ratio decidendi, establishing that repeated non-compliance with court resolutions constitutes contumacious conduct warranting administrative sanction.
• "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." — This formulation, cited from Bantolo vs. Atty. Castillon, Jr., articulates the canonical statement of a lawyer's duty to comply with court orders and the consequences of willful disregard.

• Sabado vs. Villaruel, Jr., 767 Phil. 548 (2015) — Cited for the principle that a lawyer's first and primary duty is to the administration of justice, not to the client, and that any act obstructing or impeding the administration of justice constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action.
• Anudon vs. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421 (2015) — Cited for the holding that a lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with court orders betrays a recalcitrant flaw in character and underscores disrespect towards the court's lawful orders deserving of reproof.
• Sebastian vs. Atty. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211 (2007) — Cited within Anudon vs. Cefra as supporting authority on the duty of lawyers to obey court orders.
• Bantolo vs. Atty. Castillon, Jr., 514 Phil. 628 (2005) — Cited for the canonical formulation that lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and that willful disregard may subject them not only to contempt but to disciplinary sanctions.
• Cuizon vs. Atty. Macalino, 477 Phil. 569 (2004) — Cited as the source of the opening quotation regarding recalcitrant lawyers.
• In Re: Resolution Dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94656 vs. Atty. Mortel, 791 Phil. 1 (2016) — Cited as a comparative precedent where a lawyer was suspended for one year for ignoring twelve CA resolutions; used to calibrate the six-month penalty as commensurate under the circumstances of this case.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court, expressly including "willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court." This provision was the statutory basis for respondent's suspension.
• Section 20(b), Rule 138, Rules of Court — States that it is the duty of an attorney "to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers." Cited to underscore respondent's duty to comply with CA directives.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates that "[a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process." Cited to reinforce the lawyer's obligation to respect court orders.
• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others." Cited alongside Canon 1 and Section 20(b) to establish the ethical framework violated by respondent.
• Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — States that "[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Cited in the Sabado vs. Villaruel, Jr. quotation as a fundamental principle in legal ethics.
• Rule 44, Section 7, Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the submission of the Appellant's Brief before the Court of Appeals; the CA's March 25, 2011 Notice required compliance pursuant to this rule.
• Section 12(c), Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Governs the elevation of IBP disciplinary proceedings to the Supreme Court for final action when no petition for review or motion for reconsideration is filed by either party.

Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (Chairperson), Francis H. Jardeleza, Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Alexander G. Gesmundo concurred with the Resolution. No separate concurring opinions were noted.