THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10814. September 15, 2021.]
ANITA C. BUCE, complainant,vs. ATTY. ZAHRAIN M. BANTAO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 15, 2021, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10814 (Anita C. Buce,Complainant, v. Atty. Zahrain M. Bantao,Respondent). — Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Anita C. Buce (complainant) against Atty. Zahrain M. Bantao (respondent) charging the latter with violation of Rule 1.01 1 of Canon 1 and Rule 16.03 2 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Antecedents
The administrative complaint was originally filed with the Court on 25 June 2015. In a Resolution dated 03 February 2016, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. 3
Complainant mainly alleged that respondent represented that he could secure a decision/order in a case 4 she filed before Branch 36, Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), within a period of two (2) months from engagement on 15 February 2014, as he knew the judge handling the said case. 5 On even date, respondent received an advance of Php60,000.00 on his professional fee of Php120,000.00, 6 as evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt which reads, thus —
Received the amount of P60,000.00 as advance professional fee and expenses for the case of ANITA BUCE pending before RTC 36 of Manila (Right of First Refusal Case). The balance of P60,000.00 pesos will be given to the undersigned within 2 months from today. The professional fee and legal expenses is about P120,000.00 pesos only and nothing else. That the decision/order will be given within two months. 7
Atty. Zahrain M. Bantao 8
Notwithstanding the lapse of more than a year since respondent's engagement as complainant's counsel, no decision was rendered in the case. 9
A perusal of the records shows that it was only on 18 December 2014, 10 or ten (10) months after being engaged as counsel, that respondent filed his formal entry of appearance via a motion for reconsideration. 11 This, considering that complainant's complaint was dismissed for her failure to appear at the pre-trial of the case set on 25 November 2014. 12
Respondent explained that his inaction on the case was due to the failure of complainant's former counsel, a certain Atty. Romero Esmero (Atty. Esmero), to withdraw from the subject case. He likewise denied having represented himself as knowing the judge before whom the said case was pending, arguing that complainant's case was his first case before said judge. 13
Recommendation of the IBP
In his Report and Recommendation 14 (Report) as well as his Executive Summary 15 both dated 21 May 2017, the Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for violating Canons 13, 16 and 15, Rule 15.06 17 of the CPR, and recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
On 28 November 2017, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) passed a Resolution 18 modifying the Report by imposing a more severe penalty on respondent, i.e., suspension from the practice of law for a total of two (2) years — a one (1)-year suspension for violating Canon 13 of the CPR; and another one (1)-year suspension for violating Canon 18 19 of the CPR. Respondent was likewise ordered to return the amount of Php60,000.00 to complainant. 20
In its Extended Resolution 21 dated 19 October 2018, the IBP Board found that after accepting complainant's case and receiving partial payment of his attorney's fees, respondent did nothing until after ten (10) months had passed and complainant's case had been dismissed. The IBP Board declared respondent's lackadaisical attitude towards complainant's case reprehensible. Considering that he did not render any service that entitled him to the Php60,000.00 attorney's fees, the IBP Board ordered its return to complainant. 22
Aggrieved, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, 23 which the IBP Board denied on 17 June 2019. 24
In her Report for Agenda 25 dated 21 December 2020, the Assistant Bar Confidant reported, among others, that the IBP Notice of Resolution dated 17 June 2019 addressed to complainant c/o the Superintendent at Correctional Institution for Women, 1550 Mandaluyong City was returned unserved per Registry Return Receipt No. 71842 with postal carrier's notation "Return to sender — Deceased" on the envelope. 26
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds it fitting to sustain the IBP's findings and recommendation since the attendant facts of the case show substantial evidence to support respondent's violation of the CPR.
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and a client is imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and competence in managing cases entrusted to them. 27 As such, lawyers are duty bound to attend to their client's cause with diligence, care and devotion, whether they accept it for a fee or for free, so much so that a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable. 28
Section 4, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) then in force, explicitly provides that both parties and their counsel are mandated to appear at a pre-trial except for: (1) a valid excuse; and (2) appearance of a representative on behalf of a party who is fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and documents. 29 As mandated by Section 5 of the same Rules, the failure of a party to appear at pre-trial has adverse consequences: if the absent party is the plaintiff then he may be declared non-suited and his case is dismissed; if the absent party is the defendant, then the plaintiff may be allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. 30
In this case, complainant's case was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the pre-trial of her case. However, complainant's failure to appear had a valid reason: she was incarcerated. Thus, respondent's attendance as counsel for complainant during the pre-trial was imperative. Despite this, respondent failed to attend the pre-trial proceedings scheduled on 25 November 2014 which led to the dismissal of the case.
Respondent sought to excuse himself for not attending the pre-trial by pinning the blame on Atty. Esmero's failure to withdraw his appearance. True, Atty. Esmero was the counsel of record, but, as pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent could have filed his appearance as collaborating counsel. 31 The dismissal of complainant's case could have been avoided had respondent filed his formal appearance immediately after his services were engaged on 15 February 2014, or nine (9) months before the scheduled pre-trial. Notably, it was only after the dismissal of the case, or ten (10) months after the engagement of his services, that respondent entered his appearance before the RTC.
Considering his acceptance of the case and receipt of Php60,000.00 for his attorney's fees, respondent's inordinate delay in filing an entry of appearance constituted negligence, 32 a violation of Canon 18 of the CPR, particularly Rule 18.03 which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
Moreover, respondent, by stating that he knew the judge handling the case and promising that he could deliver a decision/order within two (2) months from his acceptance of the case, likewise violated Canon 13. Respondent gave complainant the impression that he could exert influence on the judge into rendering a decision/order within the said time frame.
Respondent's acts, which the IBP Board correctly found as violative of Canons 13 and 18 of the CPR, warrant the imposition of disciplinary action. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court metes upon respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a total of two (2) years: one (1) year for violation of Canon 13 of the CPR 33 one (1) year for breach of Canon 18 of the CPR. 34
The Court notes that in the acknowledgment receipt, respondent admitted receiving the amount of Php60,000.00 as professional fee. The IBP Board, however, found that since respondent deplorably failed to render legal service to complainant, he was not entitled to the same. 35 After all, respondent only endeavored to file a notice of appearance and a motion for reconsideration after the complaint of his client had been dismissed by the court. And he only did this on account of his negligence in litigating the case of his client.
Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to order respondent to return to the heirs of the complainant, in view of the latter's death, the legal fee amounting to Php60,000.00. Said amount shall be paid within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution and interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed, which shall accrue from the date of receipt of this Resolution until fully paid. 36
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Zahrain M. Bantao is found GUILTY of violation of Canons 13 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a total period of two (2) years for violating Canons 13 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. Further, Atty. Zahrain M. Bantao is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is likewise ORDERED to return to the heirs of complainant Anita C. Buce within ten (10) days from notice the amount of Php60,000.00 with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of receipt of this Resolution until fully paid. Respondent shall submit to the Court proof of restitution within ten (10) days from payment. Failure to comply with this directive shall warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Upon receipt of this Resolution, respondent is likewise DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation informing this Court that his suspension has started and to furnish a copy of the Manifestation to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar. Likewise, let copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., additional Member per Special Order No. 2834 dated 15 July 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
2. RULE 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much therefor as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
3.Rollo, p. 187.
4. Civil Case No. 12-128039 entitled "Anita C. Buce vs. The Heirs of Celia Z. Marcelo, namely: Purita Marcelo, et al."
5.Rollo, pp. 138, 142, 187.
6.Id. at 138, 142.
7. The words "unless some pending issues" were written at the end of the last sentence but there was a line drawn over the words indicating that they were erased.
8.Rollo, p. 06.
9.Id. at 138.
10.SeeRollo, pp. 15, 187.
11.Rollo, pp. 15-17.
12.SeeRollo, pp. 15-16, 140, 143.
13.Rollo, pp. 138, 140.
14.Id. at 138-141; signed by Commissioner Peter M. Bantilan.
15.Id. at 187-188.
16. CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the Court.
17. RULE 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
18.Rollo, pp. 136-137; signed by Patricia-Ann T. Prodigalidad, National Secretary.
19. CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
20.Rollo, p. 136.
21.Id. at 142-145; signed by Commissioner Gina H. Mirano-Jesena.
22.Id. at 144-145.
23.Id. at 146-156.
24.Id. at 175-176; signed by Patricia-Ann T. Prodigalidad, National Secretary.
25.Id., unnumbered.
26.Id., unnumbered.
27.Sta. Maria v. Atayde, Jr., A.C. No. 9197, 12 February 2020 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].
28.Spouses Vargas v. Oriño, A.C. No. 8907 (Resolution), 03 June 2019 [Per J. Del Castillo]; Hipolito v. Atienza, A.C. No. 7359 (Notice), 19 June 2017.
29.Augusto v. Dy, G.R. No. 218731, 13 February 2019 [Per J.C. Reyes, Jr.].
30.Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc. v. Fermida Construction Services, G.R. No. 191353, 17 April 2017, 808 Phil. 648 (2017) [Per J. Tijam].
31.Rollo, p. 141.
32.Id. at 141.
33.SeeLantoria v. Bunyi, A.C. No. 1769, 08 June 1992, 285 Phil. 83 (1992) [Per Curiam]; SeeBildner v. Ilusorio, G.R. No. 157384, 05 June 2009, 606 Phil. 369 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
34.Spouses Vargas v. Oriño, A.C. No. 8907 (Resolution), 03 June 2019 [Per J. Del Castillo]; Hipolito v. Atienza, A.C. No. 7359 (Notice), 19 June 2017; Dagala v. Quesada, Jr., A.C. No. 5044 (Resolution), 02 December 2013, 722 Phil. 447 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
35.Rollo, pp. 144-145.
36. See Sousa v. Tinampay, A.C. No. 7428, 25 November 2019 [Per J. Inting].