FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13389. August 31, 2022.][Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6074]
HECTOR CAPINPIN, complainant, vs. ATTYS. DONABELLA TALABONG and FERDINAND TALABONG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 31, 2022, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13389 [Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6074] (Hector Capinpin v. Attys. Donabella Talabong and Ferdinand Talabong). — For the Court's consideration is the Notice of Resolution 1 dated November 19, 2021 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP) that resolved to approve and adopt the Report and Recommendation 2 of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Perpetuo T. Lucero, Jr. dated September 17, 2020. The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension from the practice of law of respondent Atty. Ferdinand N. Talabong (Atty. Ferdinand) for three months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Atty. Donabella C. Talabong (Atty. Donabella), was, however, absolved from administrative liability.
The Antecedents
Sometime in 2006, complainant Hector Capinpin engaged the services of Atty. Ferdinand to represent him in a civil case for "Annulment of Documents, Deed of Absolute Sale, Title, Reconveyance and with Damages" with the Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 06-0638-M. 3 In the course of the trial, Atty. Ferdinand withdrew as complainant's counsel and referred the case to his wife, Atty. Donabella. On April 1, 2015, the RTC dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, complainant, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). 4
In a Notice dated January 7, 2016, the CA required complainant to file an Appellant's Brief within 45 days from receipt thereof. Meanwhile, Atty. Donabella withdrew as complainant's counsel on account of her appointment as Assistant City Prosecutor of Lucena City. Atty. Ferdinand then filed his entry of appearance and took over the case. 5
In view of the complainant's change of counsel, the CA in a Notice dated April 6, 2016 gave complainant a fresh period of 45 days within which to file an Appellant's Brief. Instead of filing the required Appellant's Brief, however, Atty. Ferdinand filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file the Appeal Brief dated June 13, 2016, asking for another 15 days. He reasoned that he needed more time to study the voluminous case records and that his workload piled up in the past three months because he ran for a local position during the May 2016 elections. 6 The CA eventually gave complainant until June 28, 2016 to submit an Appellant's Brief. 7
Despite the extensions granted by the CA, Atty. Ferdinand still failed to comply within the extended period given. He only filed the Appellant's Brief on July 8, 2016, or 10 days after the lapse of the additional period granted. Consequently, the CA issued a Resolution 8 on August 31, 2016, dismissing the appeal and considering it as abandoned pursuant to Section 1 (e) and (h), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. 9
On September 16, 2016, Atty. Ferdinand withdrew as complainant's counsel. Thus, complainant was constrained to hire another lawyer to defend his cause before the CA. Complainant, through his new counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that they should not be bound by the reckless and gross negligence of Atty. Ferdinand in handling their case. The appellate court, however, denied the Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution 10 dated December 9, 2016. 11
Undaunted, complainant instituted a Petition for Review before this Court but the same was denied in a Resolution dated June 7, 2017. 12 Complainant's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied with finality by the Court in a Resolution 13 dated January 24, 2018. cDHAES
This prompted complainant to initiate a Verified Complaint 14 for Disbarment against respondents before the IBP. Complainant averred that respondents' gross negligence and inaction deprived him of his right to appeal the adverse Decision of the trial court in CA-G.R. CV No. 105773. By reason of their gross negligence, complainant and his wife stand to lose their property which took them several years to pay. Complainant averred that he and his wife religiously asked respondents for update on their case and always reminded them to timely file their pleadings. They have also been faithful in their payments of the respondents' fees. On the other hand, respondents gave constant assurances to complainant that he would win the case. 15
Finding prima facie case against respondents, 16 the IBP required respondents to file their Answer to the complaint.
In their Answer, 17 respondents countered that the RTC and the CA dismissed the complaint/appeal of the complainant on the ground that he presented a falsified and void instrument of sale as the basis of his ownership of the property subject of the dispute, and not on the ground of Atty. Ferdinand's inadvertence to timely file the appellant's brief. Simply put, respondents argue that complainant lost the case based on the merits despite respondents' efforts to win it. 18 Respondents denied that they assured the success of the case before the RTC and the CA. Instead, they simply assured him that there was a strong possibility of winning. 19
Moreover, in their Joint Position Paper, 20 respondents argued that there is no basis to implead Atty. Donabella in the disbarment case because she was no longer the complainant's counsel when the delay in the filing of appellant's brief occurred. With respect to Atty. Ferdinand, respondents maintained that his failure to file the appellant's brief within the extended period was not deliberate as his workload truly piled up when he was campaigning for a local elective position. Most importantly, the case was dismissed not solely on technicality but also based on the merits.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
In the Report and Recommendation 21 dated September 17, 2020, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Ferdinand be suspended from the practice of law for three months for violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). According to the Investigating Commissioner, the failure to file the complainant's appellant's brief despite the repeated and long extensions afforded by the CA constituted gross and inexcusable negligence on the part of Atty. Ferdinand. While it may be true that the CA also touched on the merits of the case, such did not warrant the exculpation of Atty. Ferdinand from liability since his failure to file the appeal brief on time was undeniably the main reason for the dismissal of the appeal as the CA deemed the complainants to have abandoned the same. Were it not for Atty. Ferdinand's inexcusable negligence, the CA would have properly reviewed and considered the arguments in the appeal. 22
On the other hand, Atty. Donabella was absolved from administrative liability.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
In the Resolution 23 dated November 19, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings of facts and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to suspend Atty. Ferdinand from the practice of law for three months. The complaint against Atty. Donabella was dismissed for lack of merit.
Our Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and approves the recommendation of the IBP.
It is not disputed that Atty. Ferdinand was engaged as counsel by complainant to pursue his appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 105773. However, Atty. Ferdinand failed to file the Appellant's Brief despite two extensions of time granted by the appellate court, spanning more than six months, thereby resulting to the dismissal of the appeal. 24
As duly noted by the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Ferdinand's failure to file the Appellant's Brief within the extended period given is undeniably the reason for the dismissal of the appeal since the appellate court considered the same as abandoned.
The CPR pertinently provides:
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 therewith shall render him liable.
Evidently, Atty. Ferdinand had been remiss and negligent in handling the case of his client. He neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the complainant, thus, he is liable therefor.
In a number of cases, the Court ruled that a lawyer's failure to file a mandatory pleading before the Court constitutes gross negligence which violates his duty to his clients. In Mariveles v. Mallari, 25 the counsel, despite requesting for numerous extensions of time, totaling 245 days, failed to file the Appellant's Brief, resulting to the dismissal of the appeal before the CA. In the case of Figueras v. Jimenez, 26 the counsel similarly failed to file the client's Appellant's Brief with the CA. The appellate court noted that the motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed 95 days late from the time that it should have been filed. In the case of Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo, 27 the lawyer failed to file the Appellant's Brief which resulted to the dismissal of the appeal of his client. In Marilao v. Argawanon, 28 the Court considered the failure of the counsel to file the appeal memorandum which resulted to the dismissal of the appeal as tantamount to gross negligence.
All told, We find that Atty. Ferdinand has certainly committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court. Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling one's case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle. 29
Penalty
In Villaflores v. Atty. Limos, 30 We found the erring lawyer grossly negligent in failing to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period. Because of such negligence, the complainant faced the risk of losing entirely her right to appeal and had to engage the services of another lawyer to protect such a right. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for three months.
In Venterez v. Atty. Cosme, 31 a case involving a lawyer who committed culpable negligence in handling his clients' case, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for three months upon the erring lawyer.
Similarly, in Layos v. Villanueva, 32 which also involved a lawyer who was remiss in his duties as counsel, the Court found it appropriate to suspend him from the practice of law for a period of three months.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds Atty. Ferdinand's suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months a commensurate penalty to the acts complained of. ASEcHI
In fine, We adopt the recommendation of the IBP to suspend Atty. Ferdinand from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 of the CPR.
We likewise agree with the IBP that Atty. Donabella has not committed any act or omission constituting any offense for which she may be disciplined as a member of the Bar. Admittedly, Atty. Donabella has already withdrawn as complainant's counsel when the delay in the filing of the Appellant's Brief with the CA occurred. Complainant also failed to establish his assertion that Atty. Donabella undertook to prepare the Appellant's Brief to be signed by her husband, Atty. Ferdinand.
ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Ferdinand N. Talabong is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of three months with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. The administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Donabella C. Talabong is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Respondent Atty. Ferdinand N. Talabong is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started and to copy furnish all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Ferdinand N. Talabong as an attorney-at-law; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for circulation to all its branches; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their guidance and information.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, unpaginated.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 92-96.
4.Id. at 1-2.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 3.
8.Id. at 19-22.
9.Id. at 3.
10.Id. at 23-25.
11.Id. at 4.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 27.
14.Id. at 1-8.
15.Id. at 5.
16.Id. at 34.
17.Id. at 38-45.
18.Id. at 41.
19.Id. at 42.
20.Id. at 118-126.
21.Id. at unpaginated.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 23.
25. 292 Phil. 34, 36 (1993).
26. 729 Phil. 101, 103 (2014).
27. 752 Phil. 473, 478 (2015).
28. A.C. No. 12886, December 9, 2020.
29.Del Mundo v. Capistrano, 685 Phil. 687, 692-693 (2012).
30. 563 Phil. 453, 464 (2007)
31. 561 Phil. 479, 490 (2007).
32. 749 Phil. 1, 9 (2014).