THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11062. April 6, 2016.]
LEONARDO JARDENIL, complainant, vs. ATTY. EUGENIO O. ORIGINAL, 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. 11062 (Leonardo Jardenil v. Atty. Eugenio O. Original). — The Court NOTES the letter dated January 11, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines transmitting the documents pertaining to this case.
For resolution is an unverified complaint for the discipline of respondent Atty. Eugenio O. Original filed by Dr. Leonardo Jardenil in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Iloilo Chapter on July 25, 2011, which was endorsed to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
The Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Hannibal Augustus B. Bobis, CBD, IBP follows:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
II. Statement of the Complaint
The complainant alleges that he engaged the respondent as his counsel in Civil Case No. 05-28642 and that the respondent formally entered his appearance as such on November 26, 2008. The case in question dragged on for years because of numerous postponements caused by the respondent's non-appearance. The complainant attempted to confront the respondent and demanded a refund of the acceptance fee but the respondent refused to do so, and refused to meet with the complainant.
The complainant further alleges that he has no money to pay for another lawyer and hopes to recover the amounts he paid the respondent in the hope of using the said amounts to engage another lawyer to represent the said complainant in Civil Case No. 05-28642.
The complainant explicitly states that he is seeking the discipline of the respondent for going against his lawyer's oath and for conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court.
In support of his allegations, the complainant attached copies of the following to this complaint:
(1) Annex "A" — a copy of the respondent's formal entry of appearance in Civil Case No. 05-28642 on November 26, 2008;
(2) Annex "B" — a copy of the retainer agreement between the parties;
(3) Annex "C" — a copy of the receipt issued by the respondent in favor of the complainant regarding the partial payment of the respondent's acceptance fee; and,
(4) Annex "D" — a copy of a receipt for the payment of the respondent's appearance fee for one (1) hearing.
III. Respondent's Position/Defense
The respondent admits that he was the complainant's counsel for Civil Case No. 05-28642. Based on the record of the said case the respondent entered his appearance as the complainant's counsel on November 26, 2008, or long after the date when the case was filed. The complainant's first counsel was a certain Atty. Romeo Gerochi who acted as such from August 25, 2005 (or when Civil Case No. 05-28642 was filed) to August 22, 2006. Atty. Gerochi, in other words, served as complainant's counsel for only a year.
The complainant's next counsel was a certain Atty. Felipe B. Macahilig who acted as the complainant's counsel from August 28, 2006 until June 10, 2008; or less than two (2) years.
The respondent was the complainant's counsel from November 26, 2008 until May 18, 2011. During that period — a period spanning approximately two (2) years and six (6) months — the respondent asked for postponement twice including one wherein the respondent and the opposing counsel jointly asked for postponement. On the other hand, during the respondent's time as counsel, the opposing party sought postponement at least five (5) times. caITAC
The respondent attached a summary of the events regarding Civil Case No. 05-28642 in support of his allegations; and this summary was duly certified by the Iloilo Regional Trial Court. According to this certified summary, the complaint in Civil Case No. 05-28642 was filed on August 25, 2005 by Atty. Romeo Gerochi on behalf of the complainant Dr. Leonardo Jardenil. After seeking an extension of time, the proper answer was filed by opposing counsel, a certain Atty. Rey Padilla, on October 6, 2006.
On August 15, 2006 Atty. Romeo Gerochi filed a motion to withdraw as the complainant's counsel; this motion was granted on August 22, 2006. On August 28, 2006, the complainant's new counsel, Atty. Felipe Macahilig entered his appearance. On June 10, 2008 Atty. Macahilig withdrew as Dr. Leonardo Jardenil's counsel.
From the time Civil Case No. 05-28642 was filed on August 25, 2005 until May 18, 2011 when the herein respondent withdrew as counsel the said civil case was postponed at least ten (10) times via motion by the opposing counsel; at least six (6) times by the court; at least two (2) times by the complainant's previous counsels; and three (3) times by the respondent. The respondent's postponements include one instance where the respondent was unable to attend; another instance where the respondent sent his secretary to inform the court of his non-appearance; and the last instance where the respondent and the opposing counsel mutually agreed to ask the court for a postponement.
During the respondent's time as the complainant's counsel, he managed to complete the following: (1) presented and/or examined witnesses; (2) helped facilitate the ocular inspection of the site of the nuisance to be abated; (3) submitted the complainant's formal offer of exhibits; and, (4) tried his best to expedite the trial of Civil Case No. 05-28642. In other words, the respondent acted as the complainant's counsel to the best of his ability, in accordance with professional ethics, and without unduly delaying the trial of Civil Case No. 05-28642.
Regarding the complainant's demand for a return of the acceptance fee he paid the respondent, the same should be denied because of the clear provision in the retainer agreement between the complainant and the respondent which states that the acceptance fee is non-refundable.
Of the twenty-one (21) annexes submitted by the respondent in support of his allegations, the most significant — and the most comprehensive — is Annex "1" or the certification issued by the branch clerk of court of Branch 33, Iloilo Regional Trial Court summarizing the events that transpired during the trial of Civil Case No. 05-28642.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
As stated earlier, this complaint is unverified. Under the rules of procedure of the CBD an unverified initiatory pleading such as this complaint can be dismissed outright. However, in the interest of substantial justice, it is appropriated to resolve this matter on the merits.
This complaint should be dismissed based on the evidence presented by the parties.
A careful study of the record of this case reveals that the evidence is consistent with the respondent's version of the events. The complainant argues that the respondent violated his lawyer's oath and is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. The specific instances of misbehavior attributed to the respondent are unduly delaying the trial of Civil Case No. 05-28642 allegedly due to the respondent's non-appearance; and the respondent's failure to refund the acceptance fee paid by the complainant in accordance with the retainer agreement between the parties.
Unfortunately for the complainant, the evidence is contrary to his version of the events. It can be readily seen from the certified summary issued by the Iloilo RTC that the main causes of delay in Civil Case No. 05-28642 were the withdrawals of the complainant's two (2) previous counsels, and the numerous postponements requested by the opposing party which were granted by the trial court. Simply put, it is a considerable stretch of the imagination to say that the respondent is the cause of unduly delaying the trial of Civil Case No. 05-28642. In fact, the respondent has consistently performed his professional duty in acting as the complainant's counsel in the latter case.
The resolution issued by the Iloilo Chapter of the IBP in the complaint filed by the complainant against the herein respondent also considered the record of Civil Case No. 05-28642, including the certified summary issued by the Iloilo RTC. The said resolution clearly stated that Atty. Original — the herein respondent — did not remiss his obligation as counsel of record for the plaintiff (sic). In other words, the resolution in question is consistent with the evidence submitted in this case.
The complainant's statements pointing to the respondent as the cause of delay in Civil Case No. 05-28642 are, at best, completely inaccurate. At worst, these statements are perjurious.
Regarding the complainant's demand for a refund of the respondent's acceptance fee, the same should be denied. In this first place, the retainer agreement which the complainant willingly signed contains a provision which explicitly states that the said acceptance fee is non-refundable. In the second place, the complainant — being a highly educated physician who has professionally engaged at least two (2) previous lawyers — understands the nature of the retainer agreement entered into by the parties, and the non-refundable character of the said acceptance fee. Lastly, simple justice demands that the respondent — who acted as the complainant's counsel for approximately two (2) years and six (6) months — be adequately compensated for the time, effort and professional skill he expended in Civil Case No. 05-28642. ICHDca
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that this administrative complainant be dismissed for lack of merit. 1
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-909, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case.
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. Eugenio O. Original and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 186-190. (Citations omitted)