FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12295. March 18, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4538]
ATTY. ELDORADO T. LIM, petitioner, vs.ATTY. LILIAN A. SUAN-RADAM, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12295 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4538] (Atty. Eldorado T. Lim v. Atty. Lilian A. Suan-Radam)
This administrative case stemmed from a Petition 1 filed by Atty. Eldorado T. Lim (petitioner) before the Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking to disbar or suspend Atty. Lilian A. Suan-Radam (respondent) for gross ignorance of the law, malpractice, and gross misconduct.
In his petition, petitioner alleged that he was the counsel of Chan Chung Yan in a case for forcible entry and damages filed against one Adelfa G. Andres (Adelfa) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43, docketed as Civil Case No. 11-40641. After a decision was rendered in favor of his client, Adelfa's lawyers allegedly employed dilatory tactics in order to delay the implementation of the decision. Adelfa's first lawyer then filed a petition for relief from judgment during the implementation and execution stage of the case. Thereafter, Adelfa discharged her first lawyer and engaged the services of respondent. When the petition for relief from judgment was denied, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules).
Complainant also averred that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law when she filed the motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading under the Rules. She also alleged that respondent committed malpractice when she filed the motion despite lack of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance. 2
In her Answer, 3 respondent denied the allegations in the complaint and asserted that she intended to obey the order of the court when it apprised her that a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the Rules. She further stated that she failed to attend the hearing on said motion as she was then attending the MCLE courses for her fifth compliance. According to respondent, her absence during the hearing on the motion due to completion of her MCLE compliance requirements attested to her intention to comply.
Report and Recommendation
In its Report and Recommendation 4 dated January 30, 2017, the Commission recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three (3) months for violating the Rules and declared her a delinquent member of the IBP. It opined that respondent made a mockery of the judicial processes when she filed the motion for reconsideration. It further stated that respondent's intention to obey the order of the court did not cure the fact that she violated the Rules and caused undue delay in the execution of the final judgment. acEHCD
The Commission also recommended respondent's suspension for another three (3) months or until she complied with her MCLE requirements, whichever was later, and payment of noncompliance and reinstatement fees. It noted respondent's admission in her answer that she had not complied with the MCLE requirements. It also found insufficient respondent's assertion that she was exempt from the said requirement. 5
In its November 29, 2017 Resolution, 6 the IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted the findings of the Commission. However, it only recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings of the Commission and recommendation of the Board.
It is the duty of a lawyer to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. 7 Corollary to such duty, a lawyer is expected not to unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes. 8 It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment. 9
In this case, the Court agrees with the ruling of the IBP that a practicing lawyer ought to know the basic precepts of the rules on cases involving summary procedure. At the onset, respondent should have advised her client that a petition for relief from judgment, which was filed by the previous lawyer, is a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rules. However, instead of advising her client that the course of action taken by the previous lawyer was not in accordance with the Rules, respondent even filed a motion for reconsideration, which is another prohibited pleading under the Rules. Worse, she failed to attend the hearing on said motion without any supporting justification, which further delayed the proceedings.
Such act gravely violated her duty as a lawyer to advise her client to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. 10 A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable. 11 By filing a prohibited and dilatory pleading during the execution stage, respondent violated Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states:
Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Moreover, Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession, and enhance the standard of the practice of law. 12 Here, respondent admitted that she failed to comply with her MCLE requirements. Thus, she should be held administratively liable for failure to comply with said requirements.
As recommended by the Board, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months must be imposed against respondent for filing a prohibited pleading and unduly delaying a case, and for noncompliance with the MCLE requirements.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Lilian A. Suan-Radam is GUILTY of violating her Lawyer's Oath, the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Bar Matter No. 850. She is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. She is DIRECTED to report the date of her receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court to determine when her suspension shall take effect.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Lilian A. Suan-Radam's records. Copies shall likewise be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned. SDHTEC
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2645 dated March 15, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 13-15.
4.Id. at 25-30.
5.Id. at 29-30.
6.Id. at 23.
7. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 12.
8. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 12.04.
9.Millare v. Atty. Montero, 316 Phil. 29, 34-35 (1995).
10.Cobb-Perez, et al. v. Lantin, et al., 133 Phil. 219, 226 (1968).
11.Id.
12. Bar Matter No. 850, Rule 1, Sec. 1.