[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 107-2003, August 20, 2003 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 107-2003, August 20, 2003 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 107-2003, August 20, 2003 ]

TO:

THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT:

SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW OF ATTY. ROLANDO JAVIER

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the decision of the Court En Bane in A.C. No. 5574 entitled "Teodolfo Reyes vs. Atty. Rolando Javier dated February 1, 2003, to wit:

"This refers to the complaint filed by Teodolfo Reyes against Atty. Rolando Javier with the Integrated Bar of tlie Philippines on March 17, 1999 for negligence and deceit in handling his case.

In his complaint, Teodolfo Reyes alleged that sometime in February, 1998, he asked Atty. Javier to handle the case for the annulment of his marriage to Ma. Sanita Reyes. For his legal services, a total amount, of P22,300.00 was given. It was agreed that the petition for annulment shall be filed in March, 1998. Sometime in April, 1998, complainant inquired from the respondent, if the petition has already been filed in court. Respondent answered in the affirmative but no copy of the petition was furnished to the complainant. Every time the complainant asked for a copy of the petition, respondent gave dWi excuses i.e., his secretary was absent; copy of the petition ~vm just be sent to him through a ftiend, complainant need not; "worry about tlie case. He was assured that tlie case will be over Taffer" three (3) months from its filing. In May, 1998, complainant made another follow-up with the respondent but he was'asked to wait until after the May 14 Election as respondent was busy campaigning for a candidate then.

On September 1, 1998, complainant went again to respondent's residence to demand a copy of the petition but was asked to give the messenger P200.00 for tlie purpose. On September 2, 1998, complainant was given a copy of tlie petition bearing a stamped receipt of tlie Regional Trial Court of Bulacan dated March 2, 1998. Considering that, there was no ' action on the case as promised by the respondent, complainant personally went to tlie Office of the Clerk of Court in Bulacan to follow-up Ms case. He discovered that tlie petition wqs filed only on September 2, 1998. Complainant confronted tlie respondent on the discrepancy. Respondent merely remarked, " Ewan ko set mga tao ko ." As a result, complainant decided to withdraw tlie services of the respondent from his case and demanded a refund of at least half of the amount given to him. Respondent promised to return PI0,000.00 on the second week of September but never did. Several demands were made but still respondent failed to comply with his commitment.

Pursuant, to Rule 139-B, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, respondent was requited to comment on the complaint filed against him. [1] Subsequently, a hearing was scheduled on ' October 1, 1999.

On said date, only the complainant appeared for the heaiing. Respondent failed to appear despite his receipt of the Notice for Hearing dated August 19, 1999. It was also noted that the respondent failed to submit his answer to the complaint within the reglementary period which prompted the IBP Commission to hear tlie case ex-parte. In said hearing, evidence for the complainant was: received after which, the Commission considered the case submitted for decision.

In a Report, dated April 26, 2000, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found tlie respondent guilty of tlie charges filed against him by complainant, The Commission also noted his deliberate disregard of the orders of the Commission as respondent did not file his answer to the complaint nor appeared for the heaiing despite receipt of the notices. It was recommended that Atty. Rolando Javier be suspended for a period of one year.

On May 26, 2001, the Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The resolution reads as follows:

Resolved to ADOPT and APPROVE, as ii is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commission of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex C'A"; and finding the same fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (2) year for violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility with additional requirement for .Atty. Rolando Javier to return the amount of PI0,000.00 within 30 days from affirmation of this Order.

We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent is indeed guilty of grave misconduct. Its findings are hereby adopted as follows:

There is no question that a lawyer-client relationship was established between the complainant and Respondent Atty. Rolando Javier. In fact, the latter accepted the amount of PhP22,5p0.00 to file and handle the case for annulment of marriage for the complainant. However, instead of living up to his commitment to file the petition, as agreed upon, in March 1998, Respondent Atty. Rolando Javier neglected his obligation and filed the petition only in September 1998, or six (6) months later. Worse, Atty. Rolando Javier deliberately misled Ms client, complainant herein, that the petition was filed on 2 March 1998, by giving the latter a machine copy of a petition with date of receipt, appearing thereon as "2 March 1998", when he truth and in fact, the petition was only filed on 2 September 1998, as evidenced by the certified xerox copy of the petition furnished the complainant, by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan ( Exhibit "D" ) and the certification issued by the same Office ( Exhibit "C" ). The complainant was willing to forget the misconduct of Respondent My. Rolando Javier only on the condition that the latter would refund to him the amount of PhP 10,000.00, which is less than half of the total amount respondent was paid for his services. But even on this, Respondent My. Rolando Javier reneged.

From the evidence on record, Respondent My. Rolando Javier should be held liable for misconduct and for violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. particularly the following rules:

'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 tone to the client's request for information.'

We can not overstress the duty of a lawyer to at. all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He can do.this by faithfully performing Ms duties to society; to the bar, to the courts and to Ms clients.

We fault respondent for deceiving Ms client that he has already filed the petition in the annulment case when in fact the petition was filed on later date. For Ms neglect in handling the case, he promised to return half of the amount he was paid for but never did. Such misconduct clearly betrays the confidence reposed in him by Ms client, Respondent has dismally failed to do Ms duty to Ms client and has clearly violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court, can not tolerate any misconduct that, tends to besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rolando Javier is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. He is also directed to restitute to the complainant, Teodolfo Reyes, the sum of ten thousand jpesps (P 10,000.00) from notice, otherwise he shall remain "'Tinder suspension until he paid the complainant the amount. He shall submit to the Court proof of payment of the above-stated amount within ten (10) days from payment.

This resolution shall take effect immediately. Let copies thereof be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts throughout the country.

X X X"

This decision was received by the respondent on December 11, 2002.

August __ 20 __, 2003.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Court Administrator

[2] Recrds, p. 12.