THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 4401 January 29, 2004
BIOMIE SARENAS-OCHAGABIA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. BALMES L. OCAMPOS, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
On January 25, 1995, complainant Biomie Sarenas-Ochagabia lodged a complaint1 against her former counsel, respondent Atty. Balmes L. Ocampos, whose legal services she, together with her aunts Toribia Garban de Detalla and Rosenda Garban vda. de Denore as co-plaintiffs, engaged in Civil Case No. 91-39 before Branch 15 of the Regional Trial Court of Ozamis City (for recovery of possession and ownership of a parcel of land).
An adverse decision2 having been rendered against the plaintiffs in above-mentioned civil case on September 7, 1992, Atty. Ocampos filed a notice of appeal3 at the behest of the former.4
The Court of Appeals gave the plaintiffs-appellants 45 days from notice to file their brief5 but before the lapse of the period, their counsel Atty. Ocampos, upon motion,6 was granted a 90-day extension of time to file the brief. The extended period lapsed, without, however, any appellants’ brief being filed, prompting the appellate court to dismiss the appeal.7 The dismissal of the appeal was not challenged.8
Thus spawned the present complaint against Atty. Ocampos.
In his Comment9 filed on August 29, 1995, the then 73-year old respondent claimed that he merely agreed to handle the case gratis et amore upon the request of a friend who is incidentally the son-in-law of herein complainant and Clerk of Court of one of the city courts in Ozamis City. And he explained that he appeared only at the later part of the proceedings when defendants were already presenting their evidence, he adding that when the decision of the trial court was promulgated, the plaintiffs’ principal counsel, Atty. Placidtrank Osorio, was out of town, hence, he was requested by the plaintiffs to appeal the decision before the Court of Appeals.10
Respondent additionally claimed that he was constrained to ask for extension of time within which to file appellants’ brief due to pressure of work and gastrointestinal illness, and that he had in fact made arrangements with herein complainant to ask Atty. Osorio to, in his stead, prepare the brief.11
Finally, Atty. Ocampos claimed that based on the evidence presented before the trial court, the possibility that the decision of the trial court would be reversed was remote, hence, no serious or irreparable damage could have been caused by the dismissal of the appeal.12
The complaint was referred by this Court on September 20, 1995 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for "investigation and [recommendation].13 Upon motion of complainant, venue of the investigation was transferred to Ozamis City, all the parties being residents thereof.14
In her Position Paper15 submitted on June 9, 1998,16 complainant reiterated her charge in her complaint, she contending that respondent violated his duty to inform her of his failure to file appellants’ brief and of the dismissal of the appeal. Worse, complainant went on, respondent denied such dismissal when she asked him about the status of the appeal.17
Despite the grant of respondent’s motion for extension of time to submit his position paper,18 he failed to submit one.19
The committee created for the purpose of investigating the case in Ozamis City thereupon recommended that the case be resolved on the basis of the pleadings and records on file.20
Investigating Commissioner Victoria G. de los Reyes, in her Report and Recommendation21 dated August 29, 2003, faulted respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "particularly Rule 18.0122 and Rule 18.03 x x x," and recommended the imposition of the penalty of suspension for six months, she observing as follows:
It is worthwhile to mention here that in the case of "In re Santiago F. Marcos, 156 SCRA 844 (1987)", a lawyer’s failure to file brief for his client amounts to inexcusable negligence. x x x
In the instant case, the respondent Atty. Ocampos had no justifiable excuse for not preparing and filing the needed appellants’ brief. Granting that he was ill during that time, he could have written to the complainant about it so that the latter will be able to hire another lawyer to handle the case for her and to prepare and file the appellants’ brief. He also failed to make the necessary Manifestation and Motion with the Court of Appeals. Sad to state, the respondent failed to do all these in blatant violation of his duty towards his client and to the Courts.
We therefore maintain that a lawyer’s neglect of duty should not be tolerated and for such inaction he has to be penalized.
The undersigned Commissioner could have recommended for a stiffer penalty. But considering that he is now in the twilight years of his life, and for humanitarian reasons, it is recommended that he just be suspended from the practice of law. (Emphasis in the original)23
By Resolution of September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with the modification that the penalty of suspension should only be for four months.24
This Court finds the IBP Board Resolution faulting respondent in order. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence.25 By failing to file appellants’ brief, respondent was remiss in the discharge of such responsibility. He thus violated the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
That respondent accepted to represent complainant et al. gratis et amore does not justify his failure to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file appellants’ brief. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves full attention, diligence, skill, and competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.26
It bears emphasis that a client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law and expects his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.27
Respondent’s claim that he conferred with complainant to request Atty. Osorio to draft and file the appellants’ brief does not persuade, especially given his filing of a motion of extension of time to file brief upon the grounds therein stated, without him mentioning that Atty. Osorio was going to be the one to prepare and file it.
Until his final release from the professional relationship with a client, a counsel of record is under obligation to protect the client’s interest. That is why if a party has a counsel of record, a court does not recognize any other representation on behalf thereof unless it is in collaboration with such counsel of record or until a formal substitution of counsel is effected. Since respondent had not then withdrawn as counsel as he, it bears repeating, in fact filed a motion for extension of time to file brief, he was under obligation to discharge his professional responsibility.
As for complainant’s allegation that respondent denied that the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court, it does not merit consideration, no factual finding thereof being reflected in the IBP Report and Recommendation.
A word on the penalty to be imposed. In administrative complaints, this Court has exercised its discretion on what penalty to impose on the basis of the facts thereof.1âwphi1 Thus, for a lawyer’s failure to file a brief or other pleading, this Court imposed penalties ranging from reprimand,28 warning with fine,29 suspension30 and, in aggravated cases, disbarment.31
In the present case, owing to respondent’s advanced age, this Court imposes upon him the penalty of suspension for three months.
WHEREFORE, for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Balmes L. Ocampos is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months effective upon the finality hereof, with WARNING that a repetition thereof will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rollo at 4-22.
2 Id. at 34-36.
3 Id. at 15.
4 Id. at 4.
5 Id. at 18.
6 Id. at 19-20.
7 Id. at 21.
8 Id. at 22.
9 Id. at 31-36.
10 Id. at 31.
11 Id. at 32.
12 Id. at 33.
13 Id. at 41.
14 Id. at 53, 147.
15 Id. at 114-125.
16 Id. at 148.
17 Id. at 117.
18 Id. at 139.
19 Id. at 141.
20 Id. at 141, 148.
21 Id. at 145-149.
22 Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
23 Rollo at 149.
24 Id. at 144.
25 Ford v. Daitol, 250 SCRA 7, 12 (1995).
26 Santiago v. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68, 75-76, (1995).
27 Id. at 73-74.
28 Vda. de Orbiana v. Gerio, 88 SCRA 586 (1979).
29 Basas v. Icawat, 338 SCRA 648 (2000).
30 Rabanal v. Tugade, 383 SCRA 484 (2002); Galen v. Paguirigan, 378 SCRA 527 (2002); Ford v. Daitol, supra.
31 Mariveles v. Mallari, 219 SCRA 44 (1993).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
