Santos vs. Lazaro

A lawyer who fails to file a required memorandum/brief despite notice, without a valid excuse, commits inexcusable negligence under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and may be suspended from the practice of law. The failure to exercise the degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family renders the lawyer answerable to the client, the courts, and society.

Pablito Santos engaged Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro, a member of the Philippine Bar, as counsel in an ejectment case involving a parcel of land at F. Varona St., Tondo, Manila. Complainant was described in the administrative charge as respondent’s client-relative. The disciplinary proceeding is governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 18.03, which makes lawyers liable for negligence in connection with legal matters entrusted to them.

Pablito Santos was the defendant in an ejectment case filed by Alfredo dela Rosa, in representation of his minor children Mila Nelia, Ofelia, Rochelle, and Allan, all surnamed dela Rosa, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. The complaint sought Santos’s ejectment from a parcel of land at F. Varona St., Tondo, Manila, after he refused to pay rent. Santos engaged Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro as counsel, paying an acceptance fee of ₱20,000.00; while the case was pending, respondent demanded and was paid another ₱30,000.00. The MeTC rendered judgment ordering Santos to vacate the premises and to pay the plaintiffs ₱87,000.00 as back rentals. Santos appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila and gave respondent another ₱30,000.00 for his professional services. After the MeTC rendered judgment ordering complainant’s immediate eviction from the premises, the National Housing Authority awarded him the property and a transfer certificate of title was issued in his favor.

The plaintiffs in the MeTC moved for immediate execution of the judgment being appealed. On 17 March 1997 the RTC issued an Order directing defendant-appellant Pablito Santos to file his “memorandum/brief” within thirty (30) days from receipt. Several months later, respondent was reproached by the RTC for not complying. Respondent pleaded that he be given another chance to file his appellant’s memorandum because his “attention was focused on matters pertaining on (sic) the submission of pleadings thereafter needed to be filed in reply to Plaintiff’s manifestation and motion.” His arguments were not sustained. On 18 August 1997 the RTC granted the motion for a writ of execution upon finding that Santos did not put up a supersedeas bond to stay execution. In its Order, the RTC disregarded Santos’s opposition to resolve the motion and considered counsel’s excuse for not filing his memorandum as a “feeble attempt to extricate himself (herein respondent Lazaro) from his blunder which is not excusable.”

Respondent denied the charges. He argued that his failure to file the “memorandum/brief” was not deliberate because he was morally and legally convinced that he could present his client’s valid cause or claim over the disputed property in a hearing called for the purpose. He alleged that he could have orally argued complainant’s case before the trial court had he been given the opportunity. According to him, complainant rudely terminated his services even before he could explain his legal strategy for winning the appeal. He also claimed that complainant gave him only ₱10,000.00, contrary to their agreement that he would be remunerated ₱30,000.00 for his legal services, and that complainant tried to extort ₱200,000.00 from him in exchange for the withdrawal of the disbarment complaint.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to which the complaint was referred, relied on the findings of the trial court. The Supreme Court found that respondent’s failure to file the memorandum/brief set off a chain of events that ended in the demolition of a 34-meter structure which complainant and four other families called home.

• Inexcusable Neglect: Complainant Pablito Santos alleged that respondent failed to file the “memorandum/brief” required in the appeal, resulting in complainant’s deprivation of his rights over the parcel of land at F. Varona St., Tondo, Manila.
• Unconscionable Fees and Misconduct: Complainant also alleged that respondent repeatedly demanded unconscionable amounts of money despite awareness of complainant’s grinding poverty, and that other matters indicated further misconduct.

• No Deliberate Neglect: Respondent argued that his failure to file the “memorandum/brief” was not deliberate because he was morally and legally convinced that he could present his client’s valid cause or claim over the disputed property in a hearing called for the purpose.
• Opportunity to Argue Orally: Respondent alleged that he could have orally argued complainant’s case before the trial court had he been given the opportunity to do so.
• Termination of Services: Respondent claimed that complainant rudely terminated his services even before he could explain his legal strategy for winning the appeal.
• Fees: Respondent maintained that complainant actually gave him only ₱10,000.00, contrary to their agreement that he would be remunerated ₱30,000.00 for his legal services, and that the allegation he milked complainant dry was false.
• Extortion: Respondent claimed that complainant tried to extort ₱200,000.00 from him in exchange for the withdrawal of his disbarment complaint.

• Negligence: Whether Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro is guilty of inexcusable neglect of duties as a lawyer for failing to file the memorandum/brief required by the Regional Trial Court, in violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty: Whether the recommended penalty of six months’ suspension should be imposed, or a heavier penalty is warranted.

• Negligence: Yes. Respondent is guilty of negligence in protecting the interest of complainant Pablito Santos; Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility renders lawyers liable for negligence in connection with legal matters entrusted to them.
• Penalty: One year suspension. The Court imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law, not the six months recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, effective from respondent’s receipt of the Resolution.

• Negligence: Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable. When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the client’s rights. The failure to exercise the degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed by the client and answerable to the client, the courts, and society. Respondent failed to file the required memorandum/brief despite the RTC’s 17 March 1997 Order directing him to do so within thirty days from receipt. He filed no motion for extension. His explanation that his attention was focused on other pleadings was too ludicrous to be believed and was but a feeble attempt to extricate himself from an inexcusable blunder. The neglect set off a chain of events that ended in the demolition of a 34-meter structure which complainant and four other families called home, causing complainant material prejudice. The IBP relied on the trial court’s findings, and the Supreme Court adopted and approved the IBP Report.
• Penalty: The IBP recommended a six-month suspension, but the Court found that respondent’s acts violated the most elementary principles of professional ethics. As a lawyer, respondent was wanting in the exercise of reasonable care demanded of every member of the Bar, and his measure of diligence was several notches below the standard required of his office. Accordingly, the Court suspended him for one year, not six months, effective from his receipt of the Resolution.

• Negligence of Lawyers under Rule 18.03 — Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable. The Court applied this to respondent’s failure to file the required memorandum/brief, holding that a lawyer who takes a client’s cause covenants to exercise due diligence in protecting the client’s rights.
• Due Diligence and the “Good Father of a Family” Standard — A lawyer must exercise the degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family. Failure to do so makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed by the client and answerable to the client, the courts, and society. Respondent’s diligence was found several notches below the required standard.
• Inexcusable Neglect — Failure to file a required pleading despite notice, without a motion for extension or valid justification, constitutes inexcusable neglect. Respondent’s explanation that his attention was focused on other pleadings was rejected as ludicrous and a feeble attempt to extricate himself from an inexcusable blunder.

• "Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable. It is a basic postulate in legal ethics that when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed upon him by his client and makes him answerable to him, to the courts and to society." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on a lawyer’s duty of diligence and the consequence of negligence under Rule 18.03.
• "His explanation that his "attention was focused on matters pertaining on (sic) the submission of pleadings thereafter needed to be filed in reply to plaintiff’s manifestation and motion" is too ludicrous to be believed." — The Court rejected respondent’s excuse for failing to file the required memorandum/brief, characterizing it as incredible and not a valid justification.
• "By neglecting to file the "memorandum/brief," respondent set off a chain of events which eventually ended in the demolition of a "34-meter structure which complainant and four other families call home."" — The passage links respondent’s omission to the material prejudice suffered by complainant and underscores the factual consequence of the negligence.
• "WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro is found GUILTY of negligence in protecting the interest of his client, complainant Pablito Santos, in Civil Case No. 97-82452, of the RTC of Manila, and is accordingly SUSPENDED from the practice of law, not for six (6) months as recommended by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, but for one (1) year effective from date of his receipt of this Resolution." — This is the dispositive portion, stating the finding of guilt and the one-year suspension.

• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable. The Court applied this provision to respondent’s failure to file the required memorandum/brief, which caused material prejudice to his client.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.