Tolentino vs. So and Ancheta

A lawyer who accepts a case knowing the futility of an appeal, makes false promises to clients, proposes bribing judicial officers, and fails to render any legal service commits gross misconduct warranting disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The Court also held that a government-employed lawyer who resigns from his office is not liable for negligence for cases reassigned to other lawyers, as his appearance is likened to that of a lawyer assigned to handle a case for a private law firm's client, where the firm is simply bound to provide a replacement upon the counsel's resignation.

Complainant Flordeliza C. Tolentino was the defendant in Civil Case No. SC-2267, a case involving recovery of possession of a parcel of land, which was decided against her by Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals through her counsel, Atty. Edilberto U. Coronado, who was later replaced by Atty. Henry B. So, a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The complainants, Flordeliza and her husband Gabino V. Tolentino, later secured the legal services of Atty. Ferdinand L. Ancheta after learning of the adverse Court of Appeals Decision.

Complainant Flordeliza C. Tolentino was the defendant in Civil Case No. SC-2267, a case involving recovery of possession of a parcel of land. On June 24, 1991, Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rendered a Decision against her, ordering her to vacate the land. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals through her counsel, Atty. Edilberto U. Coronado. While the appeal was pending, Atty. Coronado was replaced by Atty. Henry B. So, a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Complainants Flordeliza and Gabino V. Tolentino, her husband, afterwards learned that the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision against complainant Flordeliza. Complainants contended that Atty. So did not inform them nor take the necessary action to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. Thus, they were compelled to secure the legal services of Atty. Ferdinand L. Ancheta, whom they paid ₱30,000.00 as acceptance fee. Atty. Ancheta allegedly promised them that there was still a remedy against the adverse Court of Appeals Decision, and that he would file a "motion to reopen appeal case." Atty. Ancheta also inveigled them to part with the amount of ₱200,000.00 purportedly to be used for making arrangements with the Justices of the Court of Appeals before whom their case was pending.

Initially, complainants did not agree to Atty. Ancheta's proposal because they did not have the money and it was against the law. However, they eventually acceded when Atty. Ancheta told them that it was the only recourse they had to obtain a favorable judgment. Hence, in January 2003, they deposited ₱200,000.00 to Atty. Ancheta's Bank Account No. 1221275656 with the United Coconut Planters Bank. Complainants were surprised to learn that no "motion to reopen case" had been filed, and the Court of Appeals Decision had become final and executory. Hence, complainants sought to recover the amount of ₱200,000.00 from Atty. Ancheta. Through a letter dated September 10, 2003 by their new counsel, complainants demanded for the return of the ₱200,000.00. However, Atty. Ancheta did not heed their demand despite receipt of the letter.

Atty. So countered that he was no longer connected with the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the Department of Agrarian Reform when the Court of Appeals Decision was promulgated on July 16, 2001. He alleged that he worked at the Bureau from 1989 to 1997, and that he resigned to prepare for the elections in his hometown in Western Samar. It was a procedure in the Bureau that once a handling lawyer resigns or retires, his or her cases are reassigned to other lawyers of the Bureau. Atty. Ancheta did not file a comment despite due notice. The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. So be absolved of the charge against him for insufficiency of evidence, and as to Atty. Ancheta, the Commission found him guilty of serious misconduct and deceit and recommended his disbarment.

• Negligence of Atty. So: Complainants faulted Atty. So for failing to inform them about the Court of Appeals Decision and for not taking the necessary steps to elevate their case to the Supreme Court.
• Fraud of Atty. Ancheta: Complainants alleged that Atty. Ancheta defrauded them of the amount of ₱200,000.00, having made false promises that something could still be done with the case despite the finality of the Court of Appeals Decision, and having proposed bribing the Justices of the Court of Appeals.

• Resignation from Bureau: Atty. So countered that he was no longer connected with the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance when the Court of Appeals Decision was promulgated on July 16, 2001, having resigned in 1997 to prepare for the elections in his hometown in Western Samar.
• Reassignment of Cases: Atty. So alleged that it was a procedure in the Bureau that once a handling lawyer resigns or retires, his or her cases are reassigned to other lawyers of the Bureau.

• Negligence of Atty. So: Whether Atty. So should be held administratively liable for negligence in handling complainant Flordeliza's case for failing to inform them about the Court of Appeals Decision and for not taking steps to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
• Gross Misconduct of Atty. Ancheta: Whether Atty. Ancheta should be disbarred for defrauding complainants of ₱200,000.00 and for proposing to bribe the Justices of the Court of Appeals.

• Negligence of Atty. So: No. The complaint against Atty. So was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Atty. So had already resigned from the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance in 1997, four years before the Court of Appeals Decision was promulgated on July 16, 2001, and his cases were reassigned to other lawyers of the Bureau.
• Gross Misconduct of Atty. Ancheta: Yes. Atty. Ancheta was found guilty of gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and was disbarred from the practice of law, with his name ordered removed from the Roll of Attorneys.

• Negligence of Atty. So: The Court found that Atty. So's appearance for complainant Flordeliza may be likened to that of a lawyer assigned to handle a case for a private law firm's client. If the counsel resigns, the firm is simply bound to provide a replacement. Similarly, upon Atty. So's resignation, the Director of the Bureau merely reassigned his case assignment to other lawyers in the Bureau even without complainants' consent. While it would have been prudent for Atty. So to have informed complainants about his resignation and the eventual reassignment of their case to another lawyer, this was not required. The Court held that the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence of the respondent's misconduct affecting his standing and moral character as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Moreover, complainants were not entirely blameless, as they had ample time to engage the services of a new lawyer, Atty. So having resigned four years before the Court of Appeals Decision was promulgated. A party cannot blame his or her counsel for negligence when he or she is guilty of neglect.

• Gross Misconduct of Atty. Ancheta: The Court found that Atty. Ancheta's repeated failure to comply with several of the Court's Resolutions requiring him to comment on the complaint lent credence to complainants' allegations and manifested his tacit admission. It was established by the evidence on record that Atty. Ancheta received the acceptance fee of ₱30,000.00 on December 9, 2002, and that complainants deposited on January 17, 2003 the amount of ₱200,000.00 to his bank account. Atty. Ancheta made false promises to complainants that something could still be done with the case despite the Court of Appeals Decision having already attained finality on September 22, 2001. Worse, he proposed bribing the Justices of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that a lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice demands recognition that at a definite time, issues must be laid to rest and litigation ended. Atty. Ancheta should have advised complainants to accept the judgment of the Court of Appeals and accord respect to the just claim of the opposite party. Instead, he gave them confident assurances that the case could still be reopened and even furnished them a copy of his prepared "motion to reopen case," but he did not file it. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta's deceit and evasion of duty was manifest, and his advice involving corruption of judicial officers tramples the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and the judicial system. Atty. Ancheta breached several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Canon 7 (upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession), Canon 15 (candor, fairness and loyalty in dealings with clients), Canon 16 (holding in trust all moneys and properties of the client), Canon 17 (fidelity to the cause of the client), and Canon 18 (serving the client with competence and diligence). His continued indifference to the Court's orders constituted willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court, which, under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, is in itself a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment.

• Negligence of a government-employed lawyer upon resignation — A lawyer assigned to handle a case for a government bureau may be likened to a lawyer assigned to handle a case for a private law firm's client. If the counsel resigns, the firm is simply bound to provide a replacement. The Court applied this principle to absolve Atty. So, who had resigned from the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance four years before the adverse decision was promulgated, with his cases reassigned to other lawyers of the Bureau.

• Standard for disbarment — The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence of the respondent's misconduct affecting his standing and moral character as an officer of the court and member of the bar. The Court applied this standard in dismissing the complaint against Atty. So for insufficiency of evidence.

• Finality of judgments — A decision that has attained finality is no longer open for reversal and should be respected. A lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice demands recognition that at a definite time, issues must be laid to rest and litigation ended. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that Atty. Ancheta should have advised complainants to accept the judgment of the Court of Appeals rather than making false promises of reopening the case.

• Gross misconduct warranting disbarment — A lawyer's deceit in dealing with clients constitutes gross professional misconduct and violates his oath, thus justifying his disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The Court applied this doctrine in disbarring Atty. Ancheta for his deceitful conduct, including proposing to bribe judicial officers and failing to render any legal service despite receiving payment.

• "Atty. So's appearance for complainant Flordeliza may be likened to that of a lawyer assigned to handle a case for a private law firm's client. If the counsel resigns, the firm is simply bound to provide a replacement." — This passage articulates the Court's reasoning for absolving Atty. So of negligence, establishing the principle that a government bureau, like a private law firm, is bound to provide a replacement when a handling lawyer resigns.

• "A lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice demands recognition that at a definite time, issues must be laid to rest and litigation ended." — This passage states the controlling principle regarding the finality of judgments, which Atty. Ancheta violated by making false promises to complainants that the case could still be reopened despite the finality of the Court of Appeals Decision.

• "Atty. Ancheta's advice involving corruption of judicial officers tramples the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and the judicial system and adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law." — This passage articulates the Court's finding that Atty. Ancheta's proposal to bribe the Justices of the Court of Appeals constituted gross misconduct warranting disbarment.

• "A lawyer 'must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber, which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein.'" — This passage states the high standard of integrity and morality required of members of the legal profession, which Atty. Ancheta failed to meet.

• Rilloraza vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc., 369 Phil. 1, 10 (1999) — Cited as the basis for the principle that a lawyer assigned to handle a case for a private law firm's client, upon resignation, obligates the firm to provide a replacement. The Court analogized Atty. So's situation to this principle.

• Gonzaga vs. Atty. Villanueva, Jr., 478 Phil. 859, 870 (2004) — Cited for the standard that disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence of the respondent's misconduct affecting his standing and moral character as an officer of the court and member of the bar.

• Macapagal vs. Court of Appeals, 338 Phil. 206, 217 (1997) — Cited for the principle that a party cannot blame his or her counsel for negligence when he or she is guilty of neglect.

• Atty. Alonso, et al. vs. Atty. Relamida, Jr., 640 Phil. 325, 333 (2010) — Cited for the principle that a decision that has attained finality is no longer open for reversal and should be respected.

• In Re Joaquin T. Borromeo, 311 Phil. 441, 508 (1995) — Cited for the principle that a lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice demands recognition that at a definite time, issues must be laid to rest and litigation ended.

• Manzano vs. Atty. Soriano, 602 Phil. 419, 427 (2009) — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a profession, not a money-making trade.

• Sipin-Nabor vs. Atty. Baterinay Figueras, 412 Phil. 419, 424-425 (2001) — Cited for the principle that a lawyer's deceit in dealing with clients constitutes gross professional misconduct.

• Businos vs. Atty. Ricafort, 347 Phil. 687, 695 (1997) — Cited in relation to the grounds for disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

• Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court — Provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court, including deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. The Court applied this provision in disbarring Atty. Ancheta.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and for legal processes. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this canon by proposing to bribe judicial officers.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule through his deceitful conduct.

• Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule.

• Rule 1.03, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from, for any corrupt motive or interest, encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any man's cause. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule.

• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta breached this canon.

• Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta breached this canon.

• Rule 15.05, Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer, when advising his client, to give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule by making false promises.

• Rule 15.06, Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from stating or implying that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule by proposing to bribe the Justices of the Court of Appeals.

• Rule 15.07, Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule.

• Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta breached this canon.

• Rule 16.01, Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule.

• Rule 16.03, Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule by failing to return the ₱200,000.00 despite demand.

• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to owe fidelity to the cause of his client and to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta breached this canon.

• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta breached this canon.

• Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, and renders him liable for his negligence in connection therewith. The Court found that Atty. Ancheta violated this rule.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno; Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa. Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion was on leave, and Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza was on official leave.