THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7359. June 19, 2017.]
ELADIO J. HIPOLITO, complainant,vs. ATTY. CIRIACO O. ATIENZA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 19, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7359 (Eladio J. Hipolito, Complainant, v. Atty. Ciriaco O. Atienza, Respondent.) — The Court NOTES the letter dated October 26, 2016 of Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra, Director for Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), in compliance with the Resolution of September 14, 2016, informing the Court that the records of this case together with the IBP Resolutions have been transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant on September 1, 2016, with hereto attached transmittal letter dated August 18, 2016.
This administrative case stemmed from the Complaint 1 dated October 30, 2006 filed by complainant Eladio J. Hipolito (Hipolito) charging respondent Atty. Ciriaco O. Atienza (Atty. Atienza) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath.
In his Complaint, Hipolito averred that he obtained a loan from Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank (PBSB) in the amount of PhP1,000,000 which was secured by his 89-hectare property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 17994 of the Registry of Deeds of Kalookan-Malabon area (subject property). 2
After the loan was granted, Atty. Atienza, PBSB's counsel, remained in close contact with complainant to convince the latter for the possible sale of the subject property. 3
Thereafter, Atty. Atienza introduced to Hipolito a certain Mr. and Mrs. Kintanar (spouses Kintanar) who committed to purchase the subject property in the amount of PhP54,000,000. 4 HEITAD
In the meantime, upon the advice of the Atty. Atienza, Hipolito requested from the spouses Kintanar several advances as follows: (i) PhP200,000 on October 29, 1987; (ii) PhP200,000 on November 20, 1987; (iii) PhP100,000 on December 22, 1987; and (iv) PhP50,000 sometime in January 1988. As a scheme, Atty. Atienza would usually divide the amount equally between him and Hipolito. For the alleged share of the agents and brokers, however, Atty. Atienza deducted the same from the share of Hipolito. 5
Unfortunately, spouses Kintanar backed out from the transaction considering that the bank loan they applied for did not materialize. As such, Hipolito suggested to Atty. Atienza that they return the PhP550,000 advances made by spouses Kintanar on a 50-50 basis. Since Atty. Atienza could not raise his share yet, he convinced Hipolito to issue a promissory note in the amount of PhP600,000. 6
Meanwhile, in 1989, CLT Realty Corporation (CLTRC) negotiated for the purchase of the subject property for the amount of PhP30,000,000 with the assumption of Hipolito's obligation with PBSB.
Upon receipt of an initial payment of PhP3,000,000, Hipolito asked Atty. Atienza about their promissory note to spouses Kintanar to which he replied "Ako ang bahala dun."7
On February 26, 1991, however, Mrs. Kintanar filed a complaint against Hipolito for Breach of Contract, Sum of Money and Damages with an application for the issuance of a writ of Preliminary Attachment. Immediately, Hipolito referred the matter to Atty. Atienza. 8
Pursuant to the Writ of Attachment issued by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80, Hipolito's property covered by TCT No. T-119504 was attached. Although the said property was Hipolito's family home, Atty. Atienza allegedly failed to file any opposition thereto. Instead, Atty. Atienza merely assured him that the case was not a cause for any immediate concern and he promised to work for a settlement considering that Mrs. Kintanar's counsel is his close friend. 9
According to Hipolito, Atty. Atienza's promises, however, turned out to be untrue. He presented the following circumstances wherein Atty. Atienza was remiss in his duties as his counsel: (i) he failed to file a Pre-Trial Brief as required by the court; (ii) he failed to appear in the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference (PTC); (iii) his failure to attend in the PTC resulted to Hipolito being declared in default to which Atty. Atienza again failed to even oppose; (iv) as a result, the RTC rendered an unfavorable judgment against Hipolito; (v) Hipolito's appeal to the CA was likewise dismissed for failure of Atty. Atienza to file the required Appellant's Brief; (vi) he did not even move for the reconsideration of the CA's Resolution dismissing Hipolito's appeal; and (vii) during the execution proceedings, Atty. Atienza failed to inform Hipolito that his family home was already levied and sold on May 2004. 10
On January 22, 2007, this Court issued a Resolution 11 requiring Atty. Atienza to file his Comment within ten days from receipt thereof.
In his Comment, 12 Atty. Atienza admitted that he served as Hipolito's counsel in the case filed by Mrs. Kintanar with the condition that the latter's claim will be settled by Hipolito by using the P27 Million proceeds from the sale of the subject property to CLTRC. ATICcS
In essence, Atty. Atienza claimed that his failure to attend several hearings was due to his heavy workload. As to his alleged failure to submit or file the required and necessary pleadings, he countered that his actions were based on their understanding that their intention was merely to buy time to be able to raise sufficient funds as payment to Mrs. Kintanar's claim. 13
On July 16, 2007, this Court issued a Resolution 14 wherein it resolved to refer the instant administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision within 90 days from receipt thereof.
On February 20, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued a Notice 15 wherein it required both parties to appear before it for a mandatory conference.
On March 28, 2012, the IBP-CBD issued an Order 16 wherein it declared the mandatory conference terminated. Also, the parties were given 10 days from receipt thereof to submit their verified position papers.
On February 22, 2013, Commissioner Manuel T. Chan (Commissioner Chan) issued his Report and Recommendation 17 wherein he recommended that Atty. Atienza be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years for violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR.
In a Notice of Resolution 18 dated June 22, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Chan after finding his recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws.
Upon Atty. Atienza's Motion for Reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution 19 dated July 28, 2016 wherein it modified the penalty of Atty. Atienza by reducing his period of suspension to one year pursuant to recent jurisprudence.
Upon perusal of the records of the case, this Court finds that the Resolution dated July 28, 2016 of the IBP Board of Governors is proper under the circumstances.
It is well-settled that a lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his client with competence and diligence. 20 Consequently, a lawyer's negligence in the performance of his duties arising from the relationship of counsel and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant, particularly his client.
In the present case, Atty. Atienza's attempt to evade responsibility by claiming that his failure to file several pleadings in court was a legal strategy is bereft of merit. Indeed, his omission did not only violate the court's orders but is also inconsistent with the trust reposed to him by his client.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence therewith shall render him liable. Thus, once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his lawyer's oath. 21 TIADCc
Verily, Atty. Atienza demonstrated not only appalling disrespect and lack of responsibility to the courts and his clients but, likewise, showed a reckless disregard for his obligations as a member of the bar. 22
Moreover, 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 effectively handle them. 23
In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the instant case, and taking into account that this appears to be Atty. Atienza's first offense, the Court finds that the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors for suspension of a period of one year is appropriate and in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds and holds Atty. Ciriaco O. Atienza guilty for violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of ONE YEAR effective from notice, with the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the record of respondent as attorney and served on the IBP, as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-12.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Ibid.
4.Ibid.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Id. at 6-7.
9.Id. at 7.
10.Id. at 7-10.
11.Id. at 44.
12.Id. at 61-97.
13.Id. at 88-94.
14.Id. at 257-258.
15.Id. at 280.
16.Id. at 301.
17.Id. at 354-363.
18.Id. at 353.
19.Id. at 349-352.
20. Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.
21.Soriano v. Reyes, A.C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006.
22.Overgaard v. Valdez, A.C. No. 7902, September 30, 2008.
23.Dolore Pariñas v. Atty. Oscar Paguinto, A.C. No. 6297, July 13, 2004.