Spouses Warriner vs. Atty. Dublin

A lawyer who deliberately fails to timely file a formal offer of evidence and to oppose a motion to dismiss, causing the dismissal of the client's case, violates Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is liable for suspension; a lawyer's propensity to disobey and disrespect court orders and processes is likewise a ground for disciplinary sanction.

Complainant-spouses George Arthur Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner engaged the legal services of Atty. Reni M. Dublin to prosecute a complaint for damages against E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd. before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 16. The engagement placed Dublin under the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 18 and Rule 18.03, which require competence and diligence and prohibit neglect of a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer.

Complainant-spouses George Arthur Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner engaged respondent Atty. Reni M. Dublin to file a Complaint for damages against E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd., docketed as Civil Case No. 23,396-95 before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 16. During the proceedings, respondent requested a 10-day period to submit his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence. The period given pursuant to the RTC Order dated November 11, 1997 lapsed without compliance. In its January 23, 1998 Order, the RTC deemed respondent to have waived submission of his formal offer of exhibits. Instead of asking the RTC to set aside that Order, respondent filed on February 3, 1998 a Motion to Admit the Belated Formal Exhibits in Evidence. The RTC denied the motion and directed E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. to file its Motion to Dismiss by way of Demurrer to Evidence. Respondent again failed to comment or oppose the Motion to Dismiss despite the opportunity given by the RTC. As a result, Civil Case No. 23,396-95 was dismissed.

On March 14, 2000, complainants filed an administrative Complaint directly before the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court against respondent for gross negligence and dereliction of duty. They alleged that they secured respondent's services in Civil Case No. 23,396-95; that respondent requested a 10-day period to submit his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence; that despite lapse of the period, he did not submit it; that he did not file any comment to E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd.'s motion to declare complainants to have waived their right to file Formal Offer; that he belatedly filed a Formal Offer which the RTC denied; that he did not oppose or comment on E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd.'s move to dismiss; and that the RTC eventually dismissed Civil Case No. 23,396-95 to their prejudice.

In his Comment belatedly filed eight years after the prescribed period, respondent claimed he failed to file his Comment because he lost the records of Civil Case No. 23,396-95 and tried to get a copy from the RTC to no avail. He averred that complainant Warriner is an Australian national who married his Filipino spouse as a convenient scheme to stay in the country; that he rendered his services free of charge; that he accepted the case because he was challenged by Warriner's criticism of the Philippine judicial system; that he doubted the veracity of Warriner's claim that the construction by E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. caused the erosion of the soil towards his property; that Warriner was his only witness during the trial; that the reluctance of other witnesses strengthened his suspicion; that upon inquiries, he discovered that the bits of evidence presented by Warriner were fabricated; that barangay officials did not wish to participate in Warriner's fraudulent scheme; that he visited Warriner's property and saw that Warriner authored the damage by draining the soil erosion prevention ditches provided by E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd.; that he had a heated argument with Warriner during which the latter threatened him with a disbarment suit; that based on his discovery, he did not wish to submit his Formal Offer; that complainants no longer saw him or inquired about the status of the case; that he did not withdraw because complainants no longer visited him at his law office; that if he withdrew, Warriner would only hire another lawyer to perpetrate his fraudulent scheme; and that he could not be administratively liable for filing a belated Formal Offer as he did so to protect the legal profession and in accordance with his oath not to do any falsehood or promote unlawful causes.

In their Position Paper before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, complainants insisted that respondent mishandled their case by filing a motion to admit the formal exhibits almost three months after the prescribed period; that respondent did not present their Marriage Contract and General Power of Attorney that would have allowed Warriner to represent his wife while she was out of the country; that their marriage is not for convenience; that they have a son out of the marriage; that respondent was paid for his services; that E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. did not secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) before undertaking the construction; that Warriner was not the sole witness; that the records would show a DENR representative and the Barangay Captain were presented; and that these witnesses proved Warriner's claim was not a fabrication. In his Position Paper, respondent contradicted his earlier assertion that Warriner was his only witness by claiming that he also presented a former barangay official and a DENR representative. He conceded that E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. failed to secure an ECC but claimed this alone would not prove that it did not institute corrective measures; he insisted that the natural topography caused the soil erosion, contradicting his earlier claim that Warriner caused it by destroying the ditches; and he alleged that the estimate of damages from Bening's Garden was a fabrication because there is no such entity in Laurel St., Davao City. Complainants, in their Supplemental Position Paper, argued that after more than eight years Bening's Garden may have relocated but that this did not mean it never existed.

The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of mishandling Civil Case No. 23,396-95 in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended suspension for six months. The IBP Board of Governors approved with modification, noting that respondent also showed a propensity to defy court orders, and recommended suspension for one year. Respondent moved for reconsideration, but the IBP Board denied it. On May 6, 2013, respondent filed before this Court an Ex Parte Manifestation (Not a Motion for Reconsideration), insisting that his failure to timely file his Comment was not defiance but a natural human expression of frustration, distraught, and disappointment, and citing a Certificate of Appreciation from the IBP Davao City Chapter.

• Mishandling of Civil Case No. 23,396-95: Complainants maintained that respondent mishandled their case before the RTC by filing a motion to admit the formal exhibits almost three months after the prescribed period, failing to submit the Formal Offer on time, and failing to oppose the motion to dismiss, resulting in dismissal.
• Failure to Present Key Documents: Complainants argued that respondent did not present their Marriage Contract and General Power of Attorney that would have allowed Warriner to represent his wife while out of the country.
• Marriage and Payment: Complainants asserted that their marriage was not for convenience, that they have a son out of the marriage, and that respondent was paid for his services.
• ECC and Witnesses: Complainants argued that E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. did not secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate before construction; that Warriner was not the sole witness; and that a DENR representative and the Barangay Captain were presented and proved Warriner's claim was not fabricated.
• Bening's Garden: Complainants argued in their Supplemental Position Paper that Bening's Garden may have relocated after more than eight years, but this did not mean it never existed.
• Penalty: Complainants insisted in their Motion for Reconsideration that respondent should be disbarred or suspended for five years from the practice of law.

• Loss of Records: Respondent claimed he failed to file his Comment because he lost the records of Civil Case No. 23,396-95 and tried to get a copy from the RTC to no avail.
• Allegations Against Warriner: Respondent averred that Warriner is an Australian national who married his Filipino spouse as a convenient scheme to stay in the country; that he rendered services free of charge; that he accepted the case because he was challenged by Warriner's criticism; that he doubted the veracity of Warriner's claim; that Warriner was his only witness; that other witnesses were reluctant; that he discovered the evidence was fabricated; that barangay officials did not wish to participate; that he saw Warriner authored the damage by draining the ditches; and that he had a heated argument with Warriner who threatened him with a disbarment suit.
• Deliberate Belated Formal Offer: Respondent argued he could not be administratively liable for filing a belated Formal Offer because he did so to protect the legal profession and in accordance with his oath not to do falsehood or promote unlawful causes; he deliberately delayed the Formal Offer because he believed the exhibits were fabricated and hoped the RTC would refuse admission.
• Withdrawal and Non-Opposition: Respondent maintained he did not withdraw because complainants no longer visited him and, if he withdrew, Warriner would hire another lawyer to perpetrate his fraudulent scheme; he did not oppose the Motion to Dismiss because he deemed it proper considering the fabricated allegations.
• Contradictions in Position Paper: Respondent contradicted his earlier claim that Warriner was his only witness by saying he also presented a former barangay official and a DENR representative; he conceded no ECC but claimed it did not prove absence of corrective measures; he claimed natural topography caused erosion; and he alleged the Bening's Garden estimate was fabricated.
• Disobedience and Penalty: Respondent denied defying lawful orders, arguing that defiance connotes total, complete, or absolute refusal and not mere belated filing; he claimed his failure to timely file a Comment should be deemed a waiver; he argued the IBP should not have delved into his alleged disregard of court orders without giving him an opportunity to rebut; and he posited that the penalty was oppressive, excessive, and disproportionate, and would affect other cases he was handling.
• Ex Parte Manifestation: Respondent insisted his failure to timely file his Comment was not defiance but a natural human expression of frustration, distraught, and disappointment; he cited a Certificate of Appreciation from the IBP Davao City Chapter and asked the Court to protect the IBP's image from what he described as an inconsistent stance.

• Mishandling of Civil Case No. 23,396-95: Whether respondent violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to timely submit his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence and failing to oppose the Motion to Dismiss, causing the dismissal of the case.
• Disobedience to Court Orders and Processes: Whether respondent's repeated failure to comply with the Court's directives and the IBP's processes, including filing his Comment only after an order of arrest, warranted disciplinary sanction.
• Candor and Contradictions: Whether respondent's contradictory statements before the Court and the IBP violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty: Whether suspension from the practice of law for six months is commensurate to respondent's infractions.

• Mishandling of Civil Case No. 23,396-95: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 by failing to timely submit his Formal Offer and failing to oppose the Motion to Dismiss, causing the dismissal of the case.
• Disobedience to Court Orders and Processes: Yes. Respondent's repeated failure to comply with the Court's directives for eight years, until his arrest, showed a propensity to disobey and disrespect court orders and processes.
• Candor and Contradictions: Yes. Respondent's contradictory statements violated his duty of candor, fairness, and good faith under Canon 10 and Rule 10.01.
• Penalty: Six months suspension. Considering the admonition and arrest, the penalty of suspension for six months, as recommended by the Investigating Commissioner and as imposed in Hernandez vs. Padilla and Pesto vs. Millo, is commensurate; a warning is issued for similar violation.

• Mishandling of Civil Case No. 23,396-95: The 10-day period under RTC Order dated November 11, 1997 lapsed without compliance; the RTC, in its January 23, 1998 Order, deemed respondent to have waived submission of his formal offer of exhibits. Instead of moving to set aside that Order, respondent filed on February 3, 1998 a Motion to Admit the Belated Formal Exhibits in Evidence. The RTC denied the motion and directed E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. to file a Motion to Dismiss by way of Demurrer to Evidence. Respondent again failed to comment or oppose the Motion to Dismiss, and Civil Case No. 23,396-95 was dismissed. This violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03. Worse, respondent admitted he deliberately failed to timely file his Formal Offer because he believed the exhibits were fabricated and hoped the RTC would refuse admission. If he believed the exhibits were fabricated, he should have withdrawn under Canon 22, Rule 22.01(a) or (b), instead of deliberately mishandling the case. His claim that Bening's Garden did not exist was anchored only on the claim of Rudolph C. Lumibao, a sympathetic client and part-time gardener; complainants refuted this by saying Bening's Garden may have relocated.
• Disobedience to Court Orders and Processes: The Court required respondent to submit his Comment as early as 2000; he filed it only in 2008 and only after the Court ordered his arrest. A resolution of the Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This showed respondent's propensity to disobey and disrespect court orders and processes.
• Candor and Contradictions: Respondent claimed Warriner was his only witness but later admitted presenting a former barangay official and a DENR representative; he claimed a heated argument with Warriner but later said the Investigating Commissioner erred in stating that; he claimed Warriner caused erosion by draining ditches but later claimed natural topography caused it. As a lawyer and officer of the Court, he owes candor, fairness, and good faith; he shall not do falsehood nor mislead the Court.
• Penalty: The Court considered that respondent had already been admonished and arrested for adamant refusal to obey its directives. The penalty of suspension for six months, as recommended by the Investigating Commissioner and as imposed in Hernandez vs. Padilla and Pesto vs. Millo, is commensurate. Suspension is not primarily intended as punishment but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.

• Competence and Diligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; negligence renders him liable. The Court applied this to respondent's failure to timely file a Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence and failure to oppose the Motion to Dismiss, which caused the dismissal of Civil Case No. 23,396-95.
• Withdrawal for Good Cause under Canon 22 — A lawyer may withdraw his services for good cause, including when the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in the matter he is handling, or when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the canons and rules. The Court held that if respondent believed his clients' exhibits were fabricated, he should have withdrawn instead of deliberately mishandling the case.
• Obedience to Court Orders — A resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request but an order that should be complied with promptly and completely. The Court applied this to respondent's eight-year delay in filing his Comment, which was submitted only after an order of arrest.
• Candor, Fairness, and Good Faith under Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court; he 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 found respondent prone to contradictions in his effort to exculpate himself.
• Suspension as a Protective Measure — Suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession. The Court used this principle to justify the six-month suspension.

• "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 his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." — States the provisions violated by respondent's mishandling of Civil Case No. 23,396-95.
• "Worse, it appears that respondent deliberately mishandled Civil Case No. 23,396-95 to the prejudice of herein complainants." — Captures the Court's finding of deliberate mishandling, which aggravated respondent's liability.
• "As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely." — States the basis for sanctioning respondent's disobedience to the Court's directives.
• "Besides, we wish to emphasize that "suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment but a means to protect the public and the legal profession."" — States the rationale for the penalty imposed.

• Sibulo vs. Ilagan, 486 Phil. 197, 204 (2004) — Cited for the rule that a resolution of the Court is not a mere request but an order to be complied with promptly and completely.
• Hernandez vs. Padilla, A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 1, 12 — Cited as a precedent where suspension from the practice of law for six months was imposed; the Court used it to support the commensurate penalty.
• Pesto vs. Millo, A.C. No. 9612, March 13, 2013 — Cited together with Hernandez vs. Padilla as a case where a six-month suspension was imposed for similar infractions.
• Mr. and Mrs. Saburnido vs. Atty. Madroño, 418 Phil. 241, 248 — Cited for the principle that suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.

• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Applied to respondent's failure to timely submit the Formal Offer and failure to oppose the Motion to Dismiss.
• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Applied to respondent's neglect of Civil Case No. 23,396-95.
• Canon 22, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer may withdraw his services for good cause. Applied: if respondent believed the exhibits were fabricated, he should have withdrawn instead of deliberately mishandling the case.
• Rule 22.01(a), Code of Professional Responsibility — Allows withdrawal when the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in the matter the lawyer is handling. Cited as an option respondent should have taken.
• Rule 22.01(b), Code of Professional Responsibility — Allows withdrawal when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the canons and rules. Cited as an option respondent should have taken.
• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Applied to respondent's contradictory statements.
• Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — 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 contradictions.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.