OCA CIRCULAR NO. 76-2004, May 27, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Resolution of the Second Division of this Court dated
March 20, 2003 in Administrative Case No. 5246 entitled “Edgar O. Perea
vs. Atty. Ruben L. Almadro”, to wit:

“Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Edgar
O. Perea against Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as
lawyer of herein complainant.

Complainant narrates: Respondent was his counsel before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 99) where he (complainant
Perea) is being charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. On
February 26, 1996 , the said RTC issued an order granting Atty.
Almadro’s motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within ten (10)
days from said date. All the while, complainant thought that respondent
filed said demurrer and the case against him dismissed. It was only
sometime in 1999 that complainant learned that Atty. Almadro failed to
file any demurrer. The trial court ordered the herein complainant to
present evidence in his defense. Later, a warrant was issued for his
arrest prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail.
Complainant suffered financially and emotionally due to respondent’s
neglect of his duties. Respondent has not attended any of his hearings
which led complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw formally as
his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Because of Atty. Almadro’s
neglect, complainant is now facing the loss of his freedom and
livelihood.^[1]

Respondent tiled three motions for extension ol tune to file comment.^[2]
On November 13, 2000, the Court resolved to grant the said motions
with a warning that no further extensions shall be granted.^[3]
On November 17, 2000, respondent, through the law firm Sua and
Alamhra, filed a Manifestation and Morion that respondent has not yet
received a copy of the complaint hence it asked the Court to order the
complainant to furnish them a copy.^[4]

On December 20, 2000, respondent through said law firm submitted an Answer^[5]
to the complaint, contending that; two days after the RTC granted the
manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to
evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying
pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for
editing prior to its submission in court; a few days before the
deadline, herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from the
diskette but said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to
retrieve them; this led him to believe that the drafts must have been
finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed since it is his
practice to expunge from the diskette drafts that were already finalized
and acted upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge of the RTC retired, as a
consequence, actions on pending cases were held in abeyance; moreover,
communications with the herein complainant had become rarer; thereafter,
towards the end of 1997 up to the next five months of 1998, respondent
was preoccupied with the congressional elections in Biliran where he ran
and subsequently lost; then he was offered a position at the
Philippine- Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance
Division winch he accepted; his time and attention was spent in the
performance of his demanding job at the PSE as well as in the
preparation of his testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in
connection with the “BW” scam; anentthe case of herein complainant, he
offered on several occasions to withdraw as one of the defense counsel
of the complainant even to the extent of offering to return his
acceptance fee which the latter however refused;^[6]
it is not true that complainant pleaded with respondent to withdraw as
his counsel, the truth being that if was complainant who refused to let
go of respondent as his counsel; also, while he is a counsel of
complainant in the criminal case before the RTC, he was merely a
collaborating counsel, the lead counsel being Atty. Solomon Villanueva;^[7]
finally, he was actually mulling over the possible procedural steps to
take with regard to complainant’s case when he received instead, a copy
of the present complaint.^[8]

On February 28, 2001 , the Court issued a Resolutionx^[9] referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.

On June 13, 2001 , the IBP through Commissioner Renato G.
Cunanan submitted its report, pertinent portions of which, are quoted
verbatim:

We are not convinced about the truth of respondent’s
affirmative allegations, it is clear that he as well as his counsels are
lying. First off, the manifestation with motion filed by respondent’s
counsels, Sua and Alambra is incredibly unbelievable, in fact, to be
blunt about it, respondent’s counsels were clearly lying when they
manifested that the respondent ‘has yet to receive a copy of the
complaint…’ This is an outrageous lie. The respondent’s three (3)
motions never once mentioned that he had not received copy of the
complaint. In fact, in his second motion for further extension of time
to file comment, Atty. Atmadro CLEARLY stated in the second paragraph
thereof that:

‘He is in the process of reviewing an initial draft of said
comment and will need said period often (10) days to complete and finalize the draft.’

“From the above-quoted portion of Mr. Almadro’s manifestation
and motion, it is obvious he already had a copy of the complaint. The
manifestation and motion filed on his behalf by Attys. Sua and Alambra
with the Honorable Supreme Court is a brazen and deliberate
misrepresentation which deserves an uncompromising and vigorous
condemnation.

“The respondent claims he is in solo practice. How then can he
honestly claim that when he could not find the draft of his demurrer in
the magnetic computer diskette where he allegedly stored it, he was led
“to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited
versions thereof accordingly filed.” This allegation is pure
unadulterated garbage. Ali Mr. Almadro had to do was check his case
folder to see if a demurrer had indeed been filed. As a solo
practitioner like this representation, we can only surmise that
logically, nothing happens or ‘goes down’ in Mr. Almadro’s office
without his knowledge and indispensable participation. If so, how could
he have been led to believe anything? To be sure, he would have read and
signed the demurrer before it was ‘accordingly filed.’ Being a solo
practitioner no one else could have signed that demurrer. And does Mr.
Almadro expect anyone to believe that after finishing the draft (in his
computer) he would not even bother io print a hard copy for him to read,
edit and correct without having to do so from his computer monitor?

Incidentally, this representation verified the records of the
complainant’s criminal case before RTC-Branch 99, Quezon City . We came
upon an Order of the incumbent presiding judge declaring the respondent
harein in contempt of court for repeatedly failing to submit an
explanation as ordered by the court.

“The undersigned is convinced that Atty. Ruben L. Almadro’s
actuations reveal not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties
as a lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court and the
authority it represents.

“We wish to put on record our extreme DISPLEASURE at the
behavior of respondent Atty. Ruben L. Almadro. We strongly recommend
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years
and that he be fined Ten Thousand (PhP10,000.00) Pesos. We likewise
recommend strongly that Attys. Sua and Alambra be ordered to explain why
they should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting a
deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation on the Honorable Supreme
Court by declaring that their client had not received a copy of the
complaint when such was not true. By their misrepresentation the
afore-named counsels have exhibited contemptible disrespect not only for
the Court but also the authority it represents.”^[10]

The report was adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline with some modifications thus:

“RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decision as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
with modification, and considering that Atty. Ruben L. Almadro’s
actuations reveal not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties
as a lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court and the
authority it represent. Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for one (1) year and FINED for Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.
Likewise, Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra are ordered to explain why they
should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting a deliberate
falsehood and misrepresentation.”^[11]

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on September 11,
2002, this time in his own behalf, of the above quoted IBP Board
Resolution.^[12] This was denied on October 19, 2002. ^[13]

We are in full accord with the findinfs and recommendation of the
IBP. As dearly stated in the Code of Professional Responsibility –

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal maffer
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
client’s request for information.

It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to
submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission
from the trial court and which his client, herein complainant was
relying on. More than that, he failed to contact his client and to
apprise the latter about the developments of the case leaving
complainant completely surprised and without any protection when years
later, he received summons from the trial court asking him to present
evidence in his defense and, not long after, the trial court issued a
warrant for his arrest.

In the recent case of Sps. Galen et al. vs. Atty. Paguirigan ^[14]is the Court is explicit in its pronouncement that:

“An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the
best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief
for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.
The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by
him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and
to aid in the speedy administration of justice.

xxx

xxx

xxx

“A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of
law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service is entitled to not
just competent service but also whole-hearted devotion to his client’s
cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence
and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect within the
bounds of law the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling
his duty will render him liable for disciplinary action.”^[15]

In other cases, the Court also held that while a lawyer may
decline a person to become his client for valid reasons, once he agrees
to take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. As a lawyer, he must serve the client with competence and
diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity,
care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire devotion to the interest of
his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s
rights, and the exertion oi his utmost learning and ability
to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by
the rules of law legally applied.^[16]
His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that, is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.^[17]

Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have
this tribunal believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic
diskette, mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such file in
his diskette led him to believe that the same was already filed in
court. In his Answer, he even tried to depict himself as a Conscientious
lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling on the procedural steps
he would undertake regarding complainant’s case when instead he received
a copy of this complaint for disbarment. Such story, as observed by the
IBP, is not only outrageous but is contemptuous as it makes a mockery
of the Court.

Again, the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter:

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Ruie 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any court; nor shall he mislead or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice.

In Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Atiy. Flores,^[18]
the Court, aside from citing Canon 10 above stated that “a lawyer must
be a disciple of truth.” Indeed, it cannot be stressed enough how
important it is for a lawyer as an officer of the court to observe
honesty at all times, especially before the courts.

Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous
story of how his draft disappeared ; all the time avoiding the simple
fact that he failed to submit the necessary pleading before the trial
court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves stern penalty
therefore.

The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan
Alambra to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court
for deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation in the preparation of the
Answer for herein respondent is appropriate.-. Records reveal that both
Atrys. Sua and Alambra have filed their joint Explanation.^[19]

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Ruben Almadro guilty of
serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the
court and the authority it represents, as embodied in Canon 15, Rales
18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of Jaw for one (1) year and FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (PI0,000.00) Pesos, with a WARNING that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of the Resolution be attached to the personal records
of Atty. Alarnbra in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (EBP) and all the courts
in the country for their information and guidance.

Let the records of herein case be remanded to the Office of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further action on the contempt
proceedings against Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan Alambra.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the resolution was received by respondent on April 15,
2003 , as per Registry Return Receipt No. 40707. The motion for
reconsideration filed by respondent was denied with finality in the
resolution dated July 23, 2003 which was received by respondent on
August 21, 2003 .

__27__May 2004.

 ^[2] Id, pp. 10-26.

 ^[3] Id, p. 28.

 ^[4] Id. , p. 29.

 ^[5] Id, pp. 39-45.

 ^[6] Id, pp. 39-40.

 ^[7] Id. , p.41.

 ^[8] Id, p. 40.

 ^[9] Id p. 46.

 ^[10] Id. , pp. 77-79, Report, pp. 4-6.

 ^[11] Id, p, 72.

 ^[12] Id, pp. 82-85.

 ^[13] Id, p. 89.

 ^[14]A.C. No. 5558, March 7, 2002 .

 ^[15] Id.

 ^[16] Tan vs. Atty.
Lapak, G.R. No. 93707, 350 SCRA74-, 84 (2001); Atty. Navarro vs. Atty.
Meneses, CBD AC, No. 313, 285 3CRA585, 393 (1998).

 ^[17] Tan v., Atty. Lapak, supra- note 16.

 ^[18] AC. No. 41SS, 2S7 SCRA.449,463 ( March 12, 1998 ).

 ^[19] Rollo, p. 94.