THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11075. April 6, 2016.]
REGALADO B. BALONGAG, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO P. CABATOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 6, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11075 (Regalado B. Balongag vs. Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the letter dated January 11, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) transmitting the documents pertaining to this case; and
(2) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-876 dated December 13, 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and dismissing the case against the respondent.
For resolution is a complaint against respondent Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos for violation of the following rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 10.03, Canon 10; Rule 11.02, Canon 11; Rule 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 15.05, Canon 15; Rule 18.02, Canon 18; Rule 18.03, Canon 18; Rule 18.04, Canon 18. This was referred to this Court by the Board of Governors of the IBP.
The Report and Recommendation dated September 22, 2014 of Investigating Commissioner Eduardo Q. Ang, Jr., Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP, reads as follows:
During the time when Commissioner Maria Imelda Q. Tuazon was hearing the case, respondent filed a manifestation stating that he cannot travel to attend the hearing for health reasons. He prayed that the case be heard in Tagbilaran City. If such request cannot be accommodated, he is waiving his right to attend the Mandatory Conference but with reservation to submit his position papers upon order of the Commission.
Both parties did not appear during the scheduled Mandatory Conference called by the undersigned Commissioner last May 16, 2014. Thus, the parties were ordered to submit their respective position papers. Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
In so far as the alleged absences of respondent is concerned, this Commission finds nothing that would merit sanctions to be imposed upon him. From the complaint, it appears that Respondent was inexcusably absent only during the May 8, 2009 hearing from the Special and Affirmative Defenses.
He filed a motion to reset the hearing in advance of the June 15, 2009 setting. Counsels who filed motions for postponement or resetting should not presume that their motions will be granted by the court. In practice, however, such motions are favorably acted upon, considering that the reason of counsel is a previously scheduled Criminal Case. Criminal Cases are usually given priority over Civil Cases in conflict of schedules owing to the fact that the liberty of the accused in the former, is usually at stake.
The absence of counsel for the June 23, 2009 setting was allegedly for health reasons. Respondent should be given the benefit of the doubt. Although it should have been incumbent on the court to require the presentation of a Medical Certificate to prove such illness.
Complaint faults the lawyer for failure to comply with the order of the court to identify the names of the plaintiffs. It was the reason for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 6921.
There were several plaintiffs in said case. The presiding Judge ordered the amendment of the complaint to include all of them as indispensable parties. Respondent amended the complaint but did not indicate therein the names of all the plaintiffs. He, however, indicated that the plaintiffs are as stated in the annexed Special Powers of Attorney. Understandably, the move was to save time and space considering that Respondent was using a typewriter to encode his pleadings. aTHCSE
This was viewed as failure to comply with the order of the court. Thus, the Civil Case was dismissed.
Respondent did not follow to the letter, the order of the court to identify the names of all the plaintiffs. However, it is the opinion of this Commission that there was substantial compliance when he indicated in the Amended Complaint that the names of the plaintiffs are as stated in the Special Powers of Attorney attached thereto. These other plaintiffs were already known when they annexed and caused their SPA's to be attached to the Amended Complaint. Thus, we cannot place any violation on the part of the Respondent.
Lastly, the knowledge that this is the second disbarment case he filed against his previous lawyer does not help the cause of the plaintiff. It seems plaintiff has the propensity of filing disbarment cases against his former lawyers whenever he feels aggrieved by the result.
With the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the charge against Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos be dismissed.
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-876, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the case against the respondent.
Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court resolves to DISMISS the case against Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos and consider the same CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court