Gubaton v. Castillon

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10936. November 15, 2021.]

HAYDEE M. GUBATON, complainant,vs. ATTY. EGMEDIO B. CASTILLON, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2021which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10936(Haydee M. Gubaton v. Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon). — This is an administrative complaint 1 against respondent lawyer Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon (Atty. Castillon) for neglect of legal matter entrusted to him by his client, complainant Haydee M. Gubaton (Gubaton), in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). HTcADC

The Factual Antecedents:

On July 23, 2008, Gubaton engaged the legal services of Atty. Castillon to file a case for recovery of possession of her stolen vehicle, and other matters related thereto. She gave Atty. Castillon a partial payment of P40,000.00 on the same date, and the remaining balance of P30,000.00 on July 25, 2008 as lawyer's fees, for which the latter issued acknowledgment receipts. 2

Atty. Castillon informed Gubaton that he would report the stolen vehicle in Camp Crame, file an incident report with the insurance company, and inform P.S. Bank, wherein the car was mortgaged, of the incident to stop the running of the installment payments. 3

Thereafter, Gubaton diligently inquired on the status of her case. Atty. Castillon always responded that her case was being processed and to wait for the result. When Gubaton returned to Manila in December 2008, she went to Atty. Castillon's law office to inquire about her case. However, she was unable to talk to Atty. Castillon as he was admitted in the hospital. 4

A year later, or sometime in July 2009, Gubaton met with Atty. Castillon believing that she was about to testify on her case. To her surprise, they went to the bank to apply for stoppage of the monthly payment on her car mortgage. The bank employee informed Gubaton to first talk to the insurance company and present proofs that her vehicle was stolen such as a police blotter report, alarm certificate from Camp Crame and records from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in Davao City. 5

However, Gubaton was surprised when she found out that Atty. Castillon never reported, as promised, that her vehicle was stolen to the police, nor in the alarm report with Camp Crame. Atty. Castillon also failed to file any claim with the insurance company resulting in the denial of Gubaton's subsequent request since the period for filing the claim had lapsed. 6

Two years later, or on March 26, 2011, Gubaton wrote Atty. Castillon demanding for refund of the payments she made for his legal services. Gubaton's demand for refund was unheeded, 7 thus prompting her to file the instant complaint. 8

Atty. Castillon did not file any answer to the complaint despite receipt of notice from the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He also did not appear during the scheduled mandatory conference that was terminated on November 28, 2013. Despite the order from the CBD, both Atty. Castillon and Gubaton did not submit their respective position papers. Hence, the case was submitted for resolution. 9

Report and Recommendation of

In the January 29, 2014 Report and Recommendation, 10 the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Castillon administratively liable for violation of Rule 18.03 of the CPR for failure to take any legal action to protect Gubaton's interest. The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended that Atty. Castillon be suspended from the practice of law for six months and return the amount of P70,000.00 to Gubaton by way of restitution. 11

In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-745 12 dated October 10, 2014, the IBP-Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but increased Atty. Castillon's suspension to one year, viz.:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and for violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Egmidio B. Castillon is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and Ordered to Return the amount of Seventy Thousand (P70,000.00) Pesos to Complainant.13

Issue

Did Atty. Castillon violate the CPR?

Our Ruling

The Court adopts the findings of the IBP, but modifies the recommended penalty.

Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR state:

CANON 18. — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

xxx xxx xxx

RULE 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

A lawyer who takes a client's cause is therefore expected to exercise due diligence of a good father of a family in protecting the latter's rights. 14 He/she must be vigilant and give his/her full attention to his/her client to be worthy of the trust reposed on him/her. 15 Failure to do the same makes the lawyer answerable not only to the client, but also to the legal profession, the court and society. 16 aScITE

A careful examination of the case shows that Atty. Castillon was utterly remiss in handling Gubaton's case. He never pursued the recovery of Gubaton's stolen vehicle for which his services were engaged. Atty. Castillon did not even report the incident to the police authorities and to Camp Crame. His negligence resulted in Gubaton's failure to file a claim before the insurance company as the period for filing thereof had already lapsed.

Worse, Atty. Castillon impressed upon Gubaton that he had already filed a case and performed other actions to protect Gubaton's interest. The latter even had to procure by herself the documents necessary in filing a claim with the insurance company and to request for stoppage of payment of the stolen vehicle.

Indeed, Atty. Castillon neglected his duty to Gubaton, his client, when he did not act on the legal matter entrusted to him. Not only did he violate the CPR but also his sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath to "delay no man for money or malice, and [to] conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients."

Thus, the Court finds the penalty of suspension of one year from the practice of law against Atty. Castillon to be proper. Not only did Atty. Castillon fail to perform his duties to his client; his inaction likewise resulted in prejudice to Gubaton who failed to timely file a claim with the insurance company.

We reiterate that a lawyer must serve his/her client with competence and diligence. 17 "A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. Public interest demands that an attorney exerts his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice." 18

The Court further notes that Atty. Castillon did not heed the IBP's directive to file an answer. He likewise never appeared in the mandatory conference held on different dates and had not submitted his verified position paper despite receipt of notice. Clearly, Atty. Castillon's disregard of the notices and orders issued by the IBP constitutes utter disrespect for the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. 19 He must therefore pay a fine of P5,000.00 for his refusal to obey the orders of the IBP, to appear during the scheduled mandatory conference, and to file his position paper. 20

At this juncture, We reiterate our pronouncement in Cabauatan v. Atty.Venida, 21 to wit:

Respondent's refusal to obey the orders of the IBP "is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court." Respondent should be reminded that —

As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.

Respondent should strive harder to live up to his duties of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts, respect for law and for legal processes, and of upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession in order to perform his responsibilities as a lawyer effectively. 22

ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is found ADMINISTRATIVELIABLE for violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately upon notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is also ORDERED to PAY Haydee M. Gubaton the amount of P70,000.00, with 12% interest from the date of demand until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment. 23

Further, Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is meted a FINE of P5,000.00 for disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which must be paid within 10 days from receipt of this Resolution.

Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is DIRECTED to file a manifestation before the Court as regards the date of receipt of this Resolution for the Court to be informed when his suspension from the practice of law commenced, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he had entered his appearance as counsel.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon's records, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the country for information and guidance. HEITAD

SO ORDERED."(S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)

By Authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-4.

2.Id. at 4-5.

3.Id. at 7.

4.Id.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 8.

7.Id. at 7-8.

8.Id. at 2-4.

9.Id. at 13.

10.Id. at 17-18.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 16.

13.Id.

14.Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano, 685 Phil. 687, 692 (2012).

15.Id., citing Dalisay v. Atty. Mauricio, Jr., 496 Phil. 393, 400 (2005).

16.Id. at 692.

17.Lorenzo-Nucum v. Atty. Cabalan, A.C. No. 9223, June 9, 2020.

18.Id., citing Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, 447 Phil. 408, 414 (2003).

19.Cabauatan v. Atty. Venida, 721 Phil. 733, 738 (2013), citing Sibulo v. Ilagan, 486 Phil. 197, 203-204 (2004).

20.Quitazol v. Atty. Capela, A.C. No. 12072, December 9, 2020.

21.Supra.

22.Id., citing Sibulo v. Ilagan, supra.

23.Punla and Santos v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, 816 Phil. 776, 788 (2017), citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).