OCA CIRCULAR NO. 66-2003, June 04, 2003

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder
is the decision of the Court’s Second Division in Administrative Case
No. 50S5 entitled “Tablito Santos vs. My. Alvaro Bemabe Lazaro” dated February 6, 2003, to wit:

“Atty. Alvaro Bernabe Lazaro, a member of the Philippine Bar and
respondent herein, is charged administratively with ‘inexcusable neglect
of duties as a lawyer to a client-relative.’^[1]
According to complainant Pablito Santos, the charge arose from
respondent’s failure to file a ‘memorandum/brief resulting in his being
deprived of his rights over a parcel of land located at F. Varona St.,
Tondo, Manila. Complainant also alleged other matters indicative of
further misconduct, such as respondent’s repeated demands for
unconscionable amounts of money despite awareness of complainants
grinding poverty.

Specifically, complainant averred that he was a defendant in an
ejectment case filed by a certain Alfredo dela Rosa in representation of
his minor children Mila Nelia, Ofelia, Rochelle and Man, all surnamed
dela Rosa, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.^[2]
The complaint was for. complainant’s ‘ejectment from a parcel of land
at F. Varona St., Tondo, Manila, after he refused to pay rent.

Subsequently, respondent entered his appearance as counsel for
herein complainant, as defendant in the MeTC after he paid respondent an
acceptance fee ot P20.000 00. Complainant further alleged that while
the case was pending thereat respondent demanded and was paid another
P20,000.00. However, judgment was rendered ordering complainant to
vacate the premises and to pay plaintiffs therein P87.000.00 as back
rentals.

Feeling aggrieved, complainant appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila.^[3]
For the appeal, complainant gave respondent another P30.000.00 for his
professional services. After the MeTC rendered judgment ordering
complainant’s immediate eviction from the premises, the National Housing
Authority awarded him the property and a transfer certificate of title
was issued in his favor.^[4]

On the part of the plaintiffs in the MeTC, they moved for the
immediate execution of the judgment being appealed from. On 17 March
1997 the Regional Trial Court issued an Order directing
defendant-appellant Pablito Santos to file Ms ‘memorandum/brief within
thirty (30) days from, receipt thereof.

Several months later, respondent was reproached by the RTC for not
complying with its 17 March 1997 Order. Respondent had to plead that he
be given another chance to file his appellant’s memorandum as: his
‘attention was focused on matters pertaining on (sic) the submission of
pleadings thereafter needed to be filed in reply to Plaintiffs
manifestation 3:tld morion.7 His arguments however were not sustained.

On 18 August 1097 the RTC granted the motion for a . writ of
execution upon finding that, defendant therein. complainant herein, did
not put up a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of the judgment. In
its order, the RTC, also disregarded complainant’s opposition to resolve
the motion and considered counsel’s excuse for not filing his
memorandum as a feeble attempt to extricate himself (herein respondent
Lazaro) , from Ms blunder which is not excusable.^[5]

Respondent denied the charges against him. He argued that his failure to file the ‘Memorandum/brief” was ‘not deliberate as he is
morally and legal convinced that he may be able to present Ms client’s
valid cause or claim over the disputed property in a hearing called for
the purpose.’ He alleged that he could have orally argued
complainant case before the trial court had he been given the
opportunity to do so. According to him, complainant, ruddy “terminated,
his services even before he could explain his legal strategy for winning
the appeal. Moreover, complainant’s allegation that he milked him dry
was far from the truth since complainant actually gave him only
P10,000.00 contrary to their agreement that he would be remunerated with
P30,000.00 for his legal services. Lastly, respondent claimed that
complainant tried to extort P200,000.00 from him in exchange for the
withdrawal of his disbarment complaint, against him.^[6]

x x x x

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
explicitly provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal
matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable. It is a
basic postulate in legal ethics that, when a lawyer takes a client’s
cause, he covenants that he will exercise f due diligence in protecting
his rights. The failure to exercise that, degree of vigilance and
attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed upon him by his client and makes him
answerable to him, to the courts and to society.

The acts of respondent in this case violate the most ‘elementary
principles of professional ethics. By neglecting to file the
‘memorandum/brief,’ respondent set off a chain of events which
eventually ended in the demolition of a “34-meter structure which
complainant and four other families call home.’^[10]
His explanation that his attention was .focused on matters pertaining,
on (sic) the submission of pleadings thereafter needed to be filed in
reply to plaintiff’s manifestation and motion’ is too ludicrous to be
believed. His stance, to quote the trial court, was but ‘a feeble
attempt to extricate himself from his blunder which is not excusable.

Respondent’s failure to exercise due diligence in attending to the
interest of complainant caused the latter material prejudice. As a
lawyer, respondent was wanting in the exercise of reasonable care
demanded of every member ‘of the Bar; his measure of diligence is
several notches below the standard required of his office.

WHREFORE, respondent ATTY. ALVARO BERNABE LAZARO is found GUILTY of
negligence, in protecting the interest of Ms client, complainant
Pablito Santos, in Civil Case No. 97-S2452, of tlie RTC of Manila, and
is accordingly SUSPENDED from the practice of law, not for six (6) months as recommended by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, but for one (1) year, effective from
date of his receipt of this Resolution.

Respondent Atty. Alvaro Bemabe Lazaro is DIRECTED to Inform this
Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines of the date of his
receipt of this Resolution.”

Respondent, received a copy of the said resolution March 23,2003.

June 4, 2003.

	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
	Court Administrator

^[2] Docketed as Civil Case No. 147286-CV, MeTC-Br. 3, Manila

^[8] Docketed as Civil Case No. 97-82452

^[3] Reyes vs. Maglaya, 243 SCRA 214, 219 (1995)

^[4] Rollo, p. 2.

^[5] Order penned by Judge Wilfredo D. Reyes, RTC, Br. 31, Manila, Id at 6-7.

^[6] Rollo, pp. 14-18.

^[10] Id. at 70.