FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12141. April 1, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4659]
DON VICENTE C. REAL, complainant, vs.ATTY. JOSE MARIO ELINO T. TAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12141 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4659] (DON VICENTE C. REAL, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE MARIO ELINO T. TAN, Respondent.) — We resolve the administrative complaint 1 filed by Don Vicente C. Real against respondent Atty. Jose Mario Elino Tan for violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Antecedents
The complainant alleged that sometime in 2014, the Board of Regents (BOR) of the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU) charged him with gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, falsification of official documents and gross insubordination in connection with the procurement of a multi-speech laboratory while sitting as President of NORSU. He engaged the services of the respondent, who in turn, attended the scheduled hearings and prepared his Answer and other pleadings in connection with the complaint filed by NORSU. 2
On November 27, 2014, the respondent filed a Manifestation Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam arguing that the November 29-30, 2014 hearing for the presentation of defense evidence had no authority from the BOR. He then advised the complainant and his witnesses not to appear during the hearing. However, the Chairperson of the Formal Investigation Committee declared the complainant in default. The respondent filed a Manifestation Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam on December 8, 2014 to again question the authority of the Committee, as well as the order declaring the complainant in default. 3
On December 19, 2014, the respondent sent the complainant a text message informing him that he would be vacationing in the United States. Since then, the complainant did not hear anything from the respondent. 4
On January 19, 2015, the complainant sent the respondent a photocopy of BOR Resolution No. 128 s. 2014 which directed him to take the opportunity to defend himself. However, he did not receive any advice from the respondent regarding the resolution despite his repeated attempts to communicate with him. 5
Due to the absence of any response from the respondent, the complainant felt abandoned that he decided to resign from his office. On January 26, 2015, the complainant sent to the respondent a copy of the Manifestation and Motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), but again, he failed to hear anything from the respondent. 6 CAIHTE
On February 13, 2015, the complainant again visited the respondent's office and was surprised to learn that the latter received a copy of an order from the BOR dismissing him from service with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. On April 12, 2015, the complainant decided to send a letter to the respondent to express his frustration. The following day, the respondent sent him an email and advised him to drop by the office to sign a petition for certiorari that he would file the following day. The complainant did not sign the petition because he knew that a motion for reconsideration should have been filed. 7
In his Motion (For Extension to File Answer), 8 the respondent manifested that he prepared a petition for certiorari because he believed that the Formal Investigation Committee had no authority to conduct an investigation; that unfortunately, the complainant decided not to pursue the petition on his belief that a motion for reconsideration should have been previously filed. 9
IBP Report and Recommendation
On September 23, 2016, Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP), submitted his Report and Recommendation 10 finding Atty. Tan to have breached Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending his suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months.
Consequently, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-1212 adopting the recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline. 11
On August 7, 2018, Atty. Tan filed before the Court a Motion Ad Cautelam for Leave of Court to Make a Manifestation, 12 explaining his actuations that led to the present complaint. Atty. Tan explained, among others, that he was merely helping the complainant upon the request of a common friend. 13 He also begged for the Court's benevolence considering that this was the first time that an administrative proceeding had been commenced against him. 14
Issue
Did Atty. Jose Mario Elino Tan violate Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in handling the complainant's case?
Our Ruling
We resolve to ADOPT the recommendation of the IBP.
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 18.02 — A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.
CANON 19 — A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW. DETACa
Ordinarily, lawyers may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively or competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the Code to undertake the task with zeal, care, and utmost devotion. 15 Here, the respondent had abandoned his client without any justification. His continuous inaction despite repeated follow-ups revealed his cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward his client's cause, in blatant disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
It would be immaterial that Atty. Tan had only agreed to render his services to the complainant as an accommodation. It must be stressed that whenever a lawyer accepts a case, it deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether or not it is for a fee or free. 16
In view of the negligence committed by the respondent in promoting and protecting the cause of his client, We find as proper the recommendation of the IBP to suspend him from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months consistent with our ruling in Edquibal v. Ferrer, Jr., 17 and Ford v. Daitol. 18
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS ATTY. JOSE MARIO ELINO T. TAN GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
Let copies of this resolution be included in the personal records of Atty. Jose Mario Elino T. Tan and entered in his file in the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be disseminated to all lower courts by the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-23.
2.Id. at 1.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 6.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.Id. at 31-34.
9.Id. at 32.
10.Id. at 118-121.
11.Id. at 118-119.
12.Id. at 126-128.
13.Id. at 126.
14.Id. at 127.
15.Padilla v. Samson, A.C. No. 10253, August 22, 2017.
16.Spouses Aranda v. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010.
17. A.C. No. 5687, February 3, 2005.
18. A.C. No. 3736, November 16, 1995 (Resolution).