Tejano vs. Baterina

A lawyer suspended from practice remains duty-bound to inform his clients of his inability to attend to their case and to advise them to retain new counsel, and his failure to do so, coupled with gross negligence in handling pleadings and disobedience to court directives, constitutes sufficient grounds for disciplinary action warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Joselito F. Tejano, along with his mother and sisters, engaged the services of Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina to represent them in Civil Case No. 4046-V, a suit for recovery of possession and damages against the Province of Ilocos Sur concerning a strip of land located at Lot No. 5663 in Tamag, Vigan City. The Province had constructed an access road on the property without expropriation proceedings. The case had been pending since October 1988 before Branch 21 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Vigan City, where Judge Dominador LL. Arquelada presided starting in 2001. Prior to his judicial appointment, Judge Arquelada had served as a trial prosecutor representing the Province of Ilocos Sur in the same civil case.

• The Underlying Civil Case: Tejano, his mother, and sisters were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4046-V, a suit for recovery of possession and damages against the Province of Ilocos Sur involving a portion of Lot No. 5663 in Tamag, Vigan City. The Province had constructed an access road on the property without expropriation proceedings. The case was raffled to Branch 21 of the RTC of Vigan City in October 1988.
• The Alleged Negligence: Tejano alleged that Atty. Baterina (1) failed to object when the trial court declared that the plaintiffs had waived their right to present evidence following several postponements due to his mother's illness; (2) manifested in open court an intent to file a motion for reconsideration of the order terminating their presentation of evidence but failed to do so; (3) declared in open court that plaintiffs would not present any witnesses without consulting his clients; and (4) failed to comply with the trial court's order dated 8 November 2004 to submit their formal offer of exhibits.
• The Fact of Suspension: Atty. Baterina had been suspended from the practice of law for two years in 2001 pursuant to Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina for gross misconduct. He claimed to have informed Tejano's mother and sister of this suspension, but admitted that he did not formally inform the RTC thereof so that the court could order the plaintiffs to secure substitute counsel. The trial court proceeded to hear the case without plaintiffs being represented by counsel until its termination.
• Previous Disciplinary Record: In Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419 (2001), Atty. Baterina was previously suspended for two years for failing to file his client's Answer with Counterclaim, converting his client's money to his own personal use without consent, and repeatedly failing to comply with Supreme Court resolutions requiring him to comment on the complaint.

• Gross Negligence and Abandonment: Tejano maintained that Atty. Baterina miserably failed to advance his cause by allowing the trial court to declare the termination of plaintiffs' presentation of evidence without objection, failing to file a promised motion for reconsideration, and failing to submit the formal offer of exhibits as ordered by the court, thereby resulting in the dismissal of the civil case.
• Prior Suspension: Tejano pointed to Atty. Baterina's prior suspension from the practice of law as the reason for his non-appearance during the trial, which effectively left the plaintiffs unrepresented and their rights unprotected.

• Justified Non-Appearance: Atty. Baterina countered that his failure to appear in the civil case was justified by his two-year suspension from the practice of law in 2001, a fact which he claimed was made known to Tejano's mother and sister and circularized to all courts.
• Lack of Bad Faith: He denied allegations of bad faith and negligence, attributing his failure to comply with the Court's orders in the administrative case to his medical condition following a kidney transplant, and begged the Court's indulgence for what he claimed was not intended as disrespect.
• Judicial Bias: He pointed instead to the "displayed bias" and "undue and conflict of interest" of Judge Arquelada as the true cause of Tejano's predicament.

• Gross Negligence: Whether Atty. Baterina was guilty of gross negligence in handling Tejano's civil case in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Duty to Inform and Advise: Whether a suspended lawyer has a continuing duty to inform the court of his suspension and to advise his clients to secure substitute counsel.
• Disobedience to Court Orders: Whether Atty. Baterina's failure to comply with orders of the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings constitutes willful disobedience.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of suspension should be aggravated by his prior disciplinary record showing a pattern of misconduct.

• Gross Negligence Established: Atty. Baterina was found guilty of gross negligence. A lawyer's acceptance of a case implies a commitment to carry it to its termination with competence and diligence. His suspension from practice in 2001 did not automatically terminate his duty to his clients; rather, it imposed a concomitant responsibility to formally inform the trial court of his inability to practice so that the court could order the plaintiffs to secure new counsel, and to advise his clients to retain substitute counsel in the interim. His failure to do so, coupled with his failure to submit the formal offer of evidence as required by the trial court's order, constituted an abandonment of his duty to protect his clients' rights.
• Continuing Duty During Suspension: A lawyer—even one suspended from practice—owes a duty to his client not to "sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty." The client should never be left "groping in the dark" but must be adequately informed of developments and advised to seek other counsel when the lawyer cannot continue representation.
• Disobedience to Administrative Orders: Atty. Baterina's failure to comply promptly with the Court's orders requiring him to file a comment and to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with demonstrated a high degree of irresponsibility and disrespect for the Court's disciplinary authority. Lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives, and a resolution of the Supreme Court is an order to be complied with promptly and completely, not a mere request.
• Aggravated Penalty: The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on surrounding facts. Atty. Baterina's prior suspension in 2001 for gross misconduct involving similar acts of neglect (failure to file pleadings) and disobedience to court orders established a pattern of incorrigible behavior unacceptable among members of the Bar. Consequently, the Court deemed it proper to impose a longer suspension period of five years, rather than the two years recommended by the IBP.

• Duty of Diligence and Competence (Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility) — Lawyers have a fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts, and their clients, and must serve their clients with competence and diligence regardless of whether they accept the case for a fee or for free. Once engaged, a lawyer is duty-bound to carry the case to its termination and must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
• Duty to Inform and Advise (Rule 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility) — A lawyer must keep the client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. This duty persists even during the lawyer's suspension; he must inform the court of his suspension to enable the court to order the client to secure new counsel, and must advise the client to seek substitute representation to avoid leaving the client "groping in the dark."
• Duty to Obey Court Orders — Lawyers are officers of the court and are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, standing foremost in complying with court directives. A resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request but an order to be complied with promptly and completely.
• Pattern of Misconduct as Aggravating Circumstance — Prior disciplinary sanctions for similar offenses may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty, and a pattern of neglect and disobedience justifies the imposition of a longer suspension period to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.

• "A lawyer – even one suspended from practicing the profession – owes it to his client to not 'sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.' The client 'should never be left groping in the dark' and instead must be 'adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case.'"
• "Lawyers, as this Court has previously emphasized, 'are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court.' As such, [the lawyer] should 'know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely.'"

• Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419 (2001) — Controlling precedent establishing Atty. Baterina's prior suspension for two years for gross misconduct involving failure to file pleadings, conversion of client funds, and willful disobedience to Court orders; cited to establish a pattern of misconduct justifying the increased penalty.
• Spouses Soriano v. Reyes, 523 Phil. 1 (2006) — Cited for the principle that the appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.

• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
• 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.
• Rule 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — 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.

Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred. Sereno, CJ, on leave. Brion, J., on official leave. Carpio, J., Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 1914 dated 27 January 2015.