THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10301. April 3, 2019.]
SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND FRANCIA R. REGULTO, complainants, vs. ATTY. MANUEL F. TEOXON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 3, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10301 (Spouses Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto v. Atty. Manuel F. Teoxon). — Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainants, Spouses Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto, against respondent Atty. Manuel F. Teoxon.
Complainants are the respondents in a Petition for Review on Certiorari in a case docketed as G.R. No. 202051. On November 21, 2013, complainants filed a Comment 1 on the Petition for Review on Certiorari, stating that they received on October 18, 2013 a copy of the Resolution dated August 14, 2013. 2 The Resolution considered complainants to have waived the filing of their Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari, as respondents in the said case, on the ground of their failure to file a Comment thereon despite the lapse of an appreciable length of time.
Complainants alleged that they were surprised of the said Resolution because, all the while, they have in mind that their counsel, respondent Atty. Teoxon, had been doing his job considering that they have already paid respondent to handle their case. Moreover, complainants asserted that on several occasions, Ildefonso Regulto had frequently visited respondent to remind him of the need to file a Comment, which respondent failed to do, thus, resulting in the deprivation of their rights.
In a Resolution 3 dated December 9, 2013, the Court treated the Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari as a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Teoxon and required the latter to file a Comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice. AaCTcI
On September 30, 2015, 4 the Court deemed Atty. Teoxon to have waived the filing of the Comment on the disbarment complaint for failure to file the same within the given period. The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
For his part, although respondent admitted that he was the counsel of record of the complainants, respondent merely denied the charges against him. He contended that he never received a copy of the intended Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Solicitor General with the Supreme Court. To bolster his defense, respondent averred that he assisted the complainants with utmost diligence in appearing in court, and in filing pleadings and motions leading to the favorable decisions or orders in favor of the complainants.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended that the respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) month from the practice of law for his failure to file the required Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari resulting in the waiver of his clients' right to file the same, in violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 5
The Commissioner pointed out that if respondent did not indeed receive the copy of the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Solicitor General, he could have filed a Motion or Manifestation informing the Court of said fact and requested the Court that he be furnished a copy of the same. As regards his failure to file his Comment on the disbarment complaint, the Commissioner found that the alleged poor health condition of respondent does not justify the failure to file the same.
On May 3, 2018, 6 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification, to impose upon respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month and a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for his failure to comply with the CBD's directive.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we resolve to adopt the findings of the IBP Board of Governors and suspend Atty. Teoxon from the practice of law for one (1) month for his failure to file the required Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari, resulting in the waiver of his clients' right to file the same, in violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to his client is considered per se a violation.
The failure of the counsel to submit the required brief within the reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action and is a clear violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Teoxon had failed to submit the Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari in behalf of complainants. Hence, the actuations of respondent constitute as a violation of the aforesaid rule.
As aptly found by the IBP Board of Governors, respondent's failure to promptly file the Comment on both the Petition for Review on Certiorari and the disbarment complaint is an evident manifestation of his negligence. Clearly, Atty. Teoxon had been remiss in his duty as counsel for the complainants and had failed to comply with the utmost diligence required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, and SUSPENDS Atty. Manuel F. Teoxon from the practice of law for one (1) month and IMPOSES a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for his failure to comply with the Commission on Bar Discipline's directive. EcTCAD
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on leave.)
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 2-2a.
4.Id. at 10.
5.Id. at 168.
6.Id. at 161-162.