ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11741. June 19, 2019.]
LEDINIA R. YAP, petitioner, vs.ATTY. NESTOR F. DANTES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11741 — LEDINIA R. YAP versus ATTY. NESTOR F. DANTES
Ledinia R. Yap (Yap) filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Complaint, 1 dated February 4, 2013, against respondent Atty. Nestor F. Dantes (respondent) for violation of Canons 17 2 and 18 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Yap alleged that: she is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2089-1 which was dismissed by the trial court; on August 25, 2011, through respondent, the plaintiffs therein filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA); as shown by handwritten notes on separate dates, the respondent received P15,000.00 for the preparation of the notice of appeal and P15,000.00 for the preparation of the Appellant's Brief; however, in a Resolution dated October 3, 2012 (attached as annex to the complaint), the CA dismissed the said appeal for failure to file Appellant's Brief, ratiocinating as follows:
On 06 June 2012, this Court issued a Resolution x x x granting the plaintiffs-appellants' Motion for Extension of ninety (90) days from 27 May 2012 x x x within which to file Appellant's Brief with a stern warning that no further extension shall be allowed. Instead of filing an Appellant's Brief pursuant to the afore-cited resolution, herein plaintiffs-appellants filed a Motion for a Second Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief x x x. [A] request for a second extension of time to file brief for a total period of forty-five (45) days is inexcusable[.] 4
Yap further alleged that the respondent claimed that he was not able to file the said Brief due to his illness and the inclement weather. Granting that respondent was sick, he should have informed his clients immediately so that they would be able to retain a collaborating counsel to prevent default. However, he only sent his clients a letter dated October 22, 2012, informing them of the said dismissal and of the termination of their lawyer-client relationship. 5
In an Order 6 dated February 6, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) directed the respondent to submit his Answer to the Complaint within fifteen (15) days pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1755. In his Answer 7 dated February 22, 2013, the respondent alleged that: he is already of advanced age (his birthday is February 7, 1934; when he filed the notice of appeal before the CA, he was 77 years old) and he is suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); and he filed a Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief dated September 19, 2012 and Appellant's Brief, which were filed prior to the CA Resolution dated October 3, 2012 dismissing the subject appeal. 8
The mandatory conference/hearing for the case was held on February 28, 2014, where clarificatory questions were asked of the parties and then, they were directed to submit their respective position papers. 9 The respondent submitted his Position Paper 10 dated March 19, 2014 and Yap also submitted her Position Paper 11 dated March 27, 2014. Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for report and recommendation.
In a Report and Recommendation 12 dated December 15, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner made the following findings and recommendations: the violation of Canon 17 was not proven; however, the respondent is guilty of inexcusable negligence in violation of Rules 18.03 13 and 18.04 14 of Canon 18 of the CPR; the respondent violated Rule 18.03 since his failure to file the Appellant's Brief on time which then led to the dismissal of the case constitutes negligence; the respondent violated Rule 18.04 since he did not inform his clients of the status of the case, other than his letter October 22, 2012, apprising them of its dismissal and of the termination of their lawyer-client relationship; however, due to the facts of the case and of his advanced age, the recommended penalty was suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. 15
In Resolution No. XXI-2015-233 16 dated February 22, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the above Report and Recommendation. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the IBP Board of Governors denied in Resolution No. XXII-2016-436 17 dated August 27, 2016.
The Court adopts and approves Resolution No. XXI-2015-233 of the IBP Board of Governors with modification by lowering the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months to reprimand, since this is his first offense and considering that, as of February 7, 2019, the respondent is already 85 years old. In Olayta-Camba v. Bongon, 18 the Court reduced the penalty imposed therein since it was the respondent's first offense and due to his advanced age, among other humanitarian and equitable considerations. Moreover, in Avida Land Corp. v. Argosino, 19 the Court cited the IBP CBD's Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which provides that reprimand is generally appropriate as a penalty when a lawyer's negligence causes injury to a client or a party.
The Court notes that the respondent's counsel, Atty. Tiburcio A. Edano, Jr., filed before the IBP a Notice of Appeal, 20 assailing Resolution No. XXI-2015-233. The respondent's counsel is hereby reminded that, in Ramientas v.Reyala, 21 the Court ruled that a party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IBP may file a petition for review before this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed.
WHEREFORE, the Court adopts and approves with modification the Resolution No. XXI-2015-233 dated February 22, 2015 of the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Nestor F. Dantes is guilty of inexcusable negligence in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the CPR and he is REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be appended to Atty. Nestor F. Dantes' personal record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
3. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
4.Rollo, p. 12.
5.Id. at 2-4.
6.Id. at 18.
7.Id. at 19-25.
8.Id. at 19-23.
9.Id. at 55.
10.Id. at 56-60. "POSITION PAPER FOR RESPONDENT Atty. Nestor F. Dantes."
11.Id. at 81-89. "POSITION PAPER for the COMPLAINANT."
12.Id. at 134-141.
13. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
14. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
15.Rollo, pp. 137-141.
16.Id. at 132-133.
17.Id. at 130.
18. 757 Phil. 1, 7-8 (2015).
19. 793 Phil. 210, 224 (2016).
20.Rollo, pp. 142-143.
21. 529 Phil. 128, 135 (2006).