Vda. de Dominguez v. Agleron, Sr.

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5359. April 18, 2016.]

ERMELINDA LAD VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VICENTE A. PICHON, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON, SR., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 April 2016 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 5359 — (Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Vicente A. Pichon v. Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr.)

In a Resolution, 1 dated March 10, 2014, the Court found respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. (Atty. Agleron) administratively guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for neglecting the filing of his client's case. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant to be included in the records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country.

SO ORDERED. 2

In his Motion for Clarification, 3 dated August 7, 2014, Atty. Agleron asked when would the three (3) months suspension imposed upon him begin to run. In his Motion to Lift Order of Suspension, 4 dated October 21, 2014, Atty. Agleron claimed that the three (3) month suspension began on July 15, 2014 until October 15, 2014, with which he had complied. He presented certifications 5 from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Davao Oriental Chapter (IBP-Davao Oriental) and from the Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Mati City, Davao Oriental (RTC), to prove his alleged compliance.

In its Report and Recommendation, 6 dated November 26, 2014, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) stated that Atty. Agleron received the March 10, 2014 resolution of the Court on April 1, 2014, as evidenced by the registry receipt. When he did not file a motion for reconsideration, the three (3) month suspension began on April 16, 2014 until July 16, 2014. Accordingly, the OBC opined that Atty. Agleron did not properly serve the three (3) month suspension imposed on him.

In a Resolution, 7 dated July 13, 2015, the Court noted the report and recommendation of the OBC, held in abeyance the action on Atty. Agleron's motion to lift suspension, and required him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to cease and desist from the practice of law from April 16, 2014 to July 16, 2014.

In his Comment and Explanation, 8 dated September 14, 2015, Atty. Agleron claimed that he did not practice law from April 16, 2014 to July 16, 2014 and that he limited his court appearance for postponement or resetting of hearings to later dates. He reiterated that he also desisted from the practice of law from July 15, 2014 until October 15, 2014 as evidenced by the certifications of the IBP-Davao Oriental and the RTC.

The Court's Disposition

The Court finds that Atty. Agleron did not comply with the penalty imposed on him.

The March 10, 2014 resolution imposed upon Atty. Agleron a suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months. As correctly stated by the OBC, the suspension should have commenced from the finality of the resolution. In this case, Atty. Agleron received the copy of the resolution on April 1, 2014, as duly evidenced by the registry receipt. He had fifteen (15) days from its receipt to file a motion for reconsideration. Atty. Agleron, however, did not file such a motion, thus, the March 10, 2014 resolution became final on April 16, 2014. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the OBC that the period of suspension of Atty. Agleron from the practice of law should have been from April 16, 2014 to July 16, 2014.

Curiously, instead of presenting certifications that he had ceased from the practice of law for the said period, Atty. Agleron submitted certifications from the IBP-Davao Oriental and the RTC that he desisted from the practice of law from July 15, 2014 to October 15, 2014. Glaringly, Atty. Agleron did not faithfully comply with the penalty of suspension imposed upon him. Although Atty. Agleron claimed that he had complied within the proper period, his position is without any substantiation. It must be noted that Atty. Agleron repeatedly asserted that he did not practice law from July 15, 2014 to October 15, 2014 — a wrong period of conformity. DHITCc

Clearly, Atty. Agleron did not observe the proper period of suspension so that he could practice law during the said period. His action sets a dangerous precedent as any erring lawyer could whimsically and capriciously alter the compliance of the penalty imposed upon him. The Court cannot countenance such behavior.

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. 9 Contempt of Court may be direct contempt or indirect contempt. Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed out of the presence of the court. 10 A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court or commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt. 11 Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides for the penalties for indirect contempt, as follows:

If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the contempt consists in the violation of a writ of injunction, temporary restraining order or status quo order, he may also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by such violation of the property involved or such amount as may be alleged and proved.

xxx xxx xxx.

Based on the circumstances of the case, a fine amounting to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) should be imposed against Atty. Agleron. Also, as he did not correctly observe the earlier period of suspension imposed upon him, Atty. Agleron should faithfully serve the three (3) month suspension upon the finality of this resolution.

WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. GUILTY of indirect contempt as he did not observe the proper period of penalty of suspension imposed upon him in the March 10, 2014 Resolution, the Court orders him to pay a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.

Also, for failing to obey the penalty imposed by the Court, Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron is hereby REQUIRED to comply with the three (3) month suspension upon receipt of this resolution.

This resolution is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

SO ORDERED.''

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

 

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 69-70.

2. Id. at 70.

3. Id. at 72-73.

4. Id. at 76-77.

5. Id. at 78-79.

6. Id. at 74-75.

7. Id. at 94-95.

8. Id. at 96-100.

9. Ligon v. RTC Br. 56, Makati City, G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 373.

10. Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC, Br. 121, Caloocan City in Crim. Cases Q-97-69655 to 56 for Child Abuse, 567 Phil. 189, 203-204 (2008).

11. Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 182738, February 24, 2014, 717 SCRA 294.