THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12294. January 30, 2019.]
ISABEL P. BALL, complainant, vs.ATTY. JAVIER P. MATARO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 30, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12294 (Isabel P. Ball vs. Atty. Javier P. Mataro). — For Resolution before the Court is a Verified Complaint 1 dated December 16, 2014 filed by Isabel P. Ball (complainant) against Atty. Javier P. Mataro (respondent) for violation of Canons 17, 18, 18.03, 18.04 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
In her Complaint filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), the complainant, an American citizen, alleged that on June 28, 2012, she engaged the legal services of the respondent for her case, a complaint for recovery and possession of property, entitled Ball, et al. vs. Irene Juguan and Nokah Palomares, docketed as Civil Case No. 12-16, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Boac, Marinduque, Branch 38. The case was set for pre-trial on September 21, 2013. 2
In preparation for the case, the respondent set a meeting with the complainant on September 10, 2013. After the meeting, they agreed to hold another meeting on September 17, 2013 at the respondent's office. Unfortunately, the meeting did not push through, the complainant claimed that the respondent did not advise her that her presence was indispensable during the September 21, 2013 pre-trial. She trusted the respondent to handle her case, but she later found out that the latter did not attend the pre-trial.
On September 22, 2013, the respondent called the complainant for a meeting. Respondent was surprised that the complainant did not appear at the scheduled pre-trial. Since both complainant and respondent failed to attend the pre-trial, the RTC dismissed the case. Respondent committed to the complainant that he would file a motion for reconsideration. However, every time the complainant would follow-up the motion for reconsideration, she felt that the respondent was avoiding her. Respondent likewise intimated to the complainant that he was emotionally depressed because of the recent loss of his wife. Thereafter, the respondent made himself scarce and absconded from his duties as complainant's counsel. 3 ITAaHc
Complainant further disclosed that she had already paid the respondent the amount of Php45,000.00 as professional fees, and undertook to pay an additional amount of Php5,000.00 upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration. Respondent, however, never filed the said motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint for recovery and possession of property became final and executory. Thus, the complainant asserts that the respondent violated the CPR, and must accordingly be held accountable therefor. 4
In his Answer, the respondent denied the allegations against him. He claimed that the charges in the complaint are baseless and self-serving. He narrated his version of the events that transpired between him and the complainant. Sometime in June 2012, the respondent filed a complaint as counsel for the complainant. On March 29, 2013, the respondent's wife died and he became devastated and depressed. As a result of his depression, he was admitted in the hospital due to numerous sickness. Prior to the scheduled hearing on September 21, 2013, he was treated at the M.V. Santiago Medical Center for Systematic Viral Infection and Acute Gastroenteritis with Mild Dehydration, and was advised to rest for three months for his COPD and Diabetes Mellitus Type II. He was further advised not to travel and constrained to stay at home in Las Piñas. Thus, the respondent insisted that he failed to appear because of the doctor's advice. 5
Furthermore, the respondent asserted that he informed the complainant of his physical limitations during the course of the trial. He explained that he was unable to file the motion for reconsideration because of the doctor's advice for him to rest for a period of three months. Upon gaining his strength, the respondent sought a meeting with the complainant but the latter refused. Respondent prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. 6
Report and Recommendation
In its Report and Recommendation, 7 the IBP-CBD made the following findings:
On 28 June 2012, Complainant and the Respondent have executed a document denominated as "Contract of Service" wherein Complainant has engaged the legal services of herein Respondent for the recovery of possession of a house and lot owned by Adela Palomares located at Masiga, Gasa, Marinduque.
On 04 December 2012, Complainant, represented by counsel de parte, herein Respondent filed an Action for Recovery of possession and ownership before the Regional Trial Court, entitled "Heirs of Adela Semilla-Palomares, represented by Isabel Ball vs. Irene Palomares-Juguan and Nokah N. Palomares," docketed as Civil Case No. 12-16. CHTAIc
On 01 February 2013, defendants therein filed their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated 23 January 2013.
In a notice of Pre-Trial conference dated 28 June 2013, the Court set the hearing on 17 September 2013, at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.
On 29 March 2013, Respondent's wife, Belma Sotto Mataro, died of multiple organ failure.
On September 15, 2013, M.V. Santiago Medical Center issued a Medical Certificate with a diagnosis that Respondent is suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
On September 18, 2013, a Medical Certificate was issued with a diagnosis of a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Acute Exacerbation.
On September 24, 2013, a Medical Certificate was issued in favor of herein Respondent.
In an Order dated 17 September 2013, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Boac, Marinduque issued an Order which reads:
"In view of the failure of the plaintiffs and their counsel, Atty. Javier P. Mataro to appear in today's pre-trial conference, as prayed for by the defendants' counsel, Atty. Carlo Rodas of the Public Attorney's office, let this case be DISMISSED with prejudice."
On 13 February 2015, Complainant filed the present disbarment case against herein Respondent. 8
On June 16, 2016, Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera (Investigating Commissioner) of the IBP-CBD recommended that a fine of Php10,000.00 be imposed upon the respondent, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission finds Respondent ATTY. JAVIER P. MATARO liable for negligence in the handling of complainant's case and that herein Respondent ATTY. JAVIER P. MATARO be meted of a FINE of Php10,000.00, (with) a warning that any similar negligence will be dealt with more severely.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 9
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR. He explained that the respondent's failure to appear in the scheduled pre-trial on September 22, 2013 constitutes misconduct and negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer. Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner also noted that the respondent failed to fully justify his failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. This was further compounded by his failure to file a motion for reconsideration on the dismissal order of the Court. According to the Investigating Commissioner, the respondent's failure to appear at the pre-trial without justifiable grounds constitutes misconduct and negligence.
However, the Investigating Commissioner considered several mitigating factors to arrive at the proper penalty. He found that the death of the respondent's wife has contributed to his temporary depression. In addition, he was suffering from various illnesses which may have greatly affected his performance in his trial work. Considering that the respondent is already in the twilight years of his life at the age of 73, suspending him from the practice of law may be too harsh a penalty for his failure to appear before a pre-trial. The dismissal of the case without prejudice should also mitigate the recommended penalty. Hence, the IBP-CBD recommended that a fine of Php10,000.00 be imposed upon the respondent with a warning that any similar negligence will be dealt with more severely. 10 EATCcI
On November 29, 2017, a Resolution 11 was passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP, as follows:
CBD Case No. 15-4517
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with modification, by imposing upon Atty. Javier P. Mataro a FINE of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos for negligence when he failed to file the Motion for Reconsideration, with a Warning that repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely. 12
After a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and the conclusion of the IBP Board of Governors that the respondent was negligent and unmindful of his sworn duties to his clients.
Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR clearly provide:
CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
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 there with shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client's request for information.
In Caranza Vda. De Saldivar v. Atty. Cabanes, Jr., 13 the Court held that the relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
Case law further illumines that a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. DHITCc
Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. 14
Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty would render them liable for disciplinary action. Respondent has failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates his duties to his client, he engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for which he should be held accountable. 15
WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated November 29, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors approving and adopting the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) is hereby imposed upon respondent Atty. Javier P. Mataro, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the respondent's personal record with the Office of the Bar Confidant and be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 3-4.
4.Id. at 4-5.
5.Id. at 10-11.
6.Id. at 12.
7.Id. at 146.
8.Id. at 151-152.
9.Id. at 156.
10.Id. at 156.
11.Id. at 144.
12.Id.
13. 713 Phil. 530 (2013).
14.Id. at 538.
15.Hernandez v. Atty. Padilla, 688 Phil. 329, 338 (2012), citing Perea v. Atty. Almadro, 447 Phil. 434 (2003) and Fernandez v. Atty. Cabrera II, 463 Phil. 352 (2003).