OCA CIRCULAR NO. 7-2004, January 29, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Decision of the Court En Bane dated September 30, 2003
in Administrative Case No. 5854, to wit:

In a verified complaint ^[1]
dated March 20, 2002 , filed before the Committee on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), complainant Nora E. Miwa
seeks the disbarment or suspension from law practice of respondent,
Atty. Rene O. Medina, for gross negligence in the handling of her case.
Complainant alleges that Atty. Medina’s negligent and deceitful conduct
effectively deprived her of a day in court, as a result of which she
lost her case and her property taken by order of the court. More
specifically, Atty. Medina stands charged in CBD Case No. 02-951 with
violating the Attorney’s Oath as well as Canons 2 ^[2] , 10 ^[3], 12 ^[4] , and 18 ^[5] of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The facts, as gleaned from the record, are as follows:

On April 2, 1998 , Nora E. Miwa was named as defendant in Civil
Case No. 5147 for quieting of title, recovery of possession, and damages
before the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City , Branch 29.

On August 24, 1998 , Miwa secured respondent’s services as her counsel in Civil Case No. 5147.

On September 14, 1998 , respondent herein filed -Miwa’s answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 5147.

In its order dated December 18, 1998 , the RTC set the pre- trial
conference for February 8, 1999 . llie scheduled .pre-trial conference,
however, did not push through as herein respondent failed to receive
notice therefore. Hence, the RTC reset the pre-trial to March 26, 1999 .

On February 26, 1999 , respondent filed his pre-trial brief

However, no pre-trial conference was actually held at all. As explained by the trial court:

Pre-trial was scheduled several times and the records would show
that at no single instance did the defendant, herself appeared (sic)
despite the fact that she was sent notices for all every scheduled
hearing at her address thru registered mail. Due to the fact that
pre-trial conference could not be conducted on several occasions,
pre-trial “was terminated, on October 22, 1999 fay then Acting Presiding
Judge Diomedes M. Eviota^[6]

Trial on the merits then proceeded until the plaintiffs in Civil

Case No. 5147 rested their case. During the trial, the RTC made the following observations:

When it was the defendant’s turn to present her evidence,
several postponements were asked for that this Court on November 22,
2000 ordered the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff’s P10,000.00 for
the transportation expenses and appearance fee of plaintiff’s counsel.
(That order is until now ignored-despite efforts by this Court to effect
the same as per Sheriffs return dated March 22,2001). In an Order of
this Court dated.’Aprils 3001, the defendant-was deemed to have waived
her right.to ;present her evidence and her counsel was fined P500.00.^[7]

Miwa, through counsel, moved for reconsideration of the trial
court’s order of April 2, 2001 . Respondent also moved to withdraw as
counsel for Miwa. The trial court denied both motions in its order of
June 21,2001 . The trial court noted that:

If as alleged, counsel has not received the Order of this Court
directing waiver on the part of the defendant to present evidence, why
file the instant motion to reconsider said Order? The order was dated
April 2, 2001 and was received by defendant’s counsel, according to the
records, on April 20,2001 . Yet he filed this Motion after the lapse of
40 days.

Besides, the Order of this Court dated April 2, 2001 sought to
be reconsidered is a mere consequence (of) the non- appearance of
defendant and her counsel, without explanation nor excuse on the
scheduled hearing on even date. The notice of hearing on said date was
received by the movant on February 19, 2001 . Yet he did not bother to
move for postponement. Her counsel could not have been busy in his role
as campaign manager of LAKAS-NUCD for the election period commenced on
March 31, 2001 . Unless, of course, counsel admits that he had been busy
campaigning prior to the campaign period allowed by law. He had
sufficient time from February 19 to March 31,2001 to inform this Court.
Yet he did not bother to do so. He just ignored the lawful orders of
this Court when as a lawyer and an officer of this Court, his first
priority is his duties before the courts of law.

Furthermore, the instant case had been, on motion of the
defendant, postponed twice. As a matter of fact, in the Order of this
Court dated November 22, 2000, then Acting Presiding Judge Diomedes M.
Eviota had ordered defendant to pay reimbursement of P10,000.00 for the
transportation expenses and appearance fee of Atty. Durante, plaintiffs
counsel, for filing a Motion for Postponement only a day prior to the
hearing and was admonished to make timely motion for postponement. The
records would indubitably show that he received the Order setting the
hearing for November 22, 2000 on October 9, 2000 . With due diligence,
counsel could have filed his motion for postponement several days prior
to the scheduled hearing so as not to cause inconvenience to the other
party and as a matter of professional courtesy to the opposing counsel
of record. Yet, he did not bother to do so ^[8]

In denying respondent’s motion to withdraw as counsel, the trial court ratiocinated;-

Defendant’s counsel further alleged that the defendant had
already severed their client-lawyer relationship. Again this is a denial
pregnant with admission indicating falsity. If it were true, then
counsel (has) no personality whatsoever to file the instant Motion for
and in behalf of the defendant In effect, this Motion is a mere scrap of
paper if the same were true.

On the other hand, only on May 30,2001 has this Court been
informed of such termination of client-lawyer relationship. Prior to
that, Atty. Medina is still counsel on record of the defendant and has
the duty to inform his client of lawful orders of this Court. For notice
to counsel is notice to party.

Moreover, it is alleged in his Motion that the defendant “has
retained the services of another lawyer to appear for her in another
case before the Municipal Trial Court of Surigao City ” That was another
case before the MTC, not necessarily in this case before (the) RTC.
When such client-lawyer relationship was terminated is not al! too
clear. The date is important for notice to counsel on record is notice
to the party^[9].

On August 6,2001 , the RTC rendered judgment in Civil Case No.
5147 declaring the plaintiff the absolute owner of the property, ordered
Miwa to vacate and deliver possession of the lot, demolish and remove
all structures built therein, and pay the plaintiff exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit

Hence, the filing of the instant complaint before the IBP
Committee on Bar Discipline, with complainant Miwa alleging that
respondent:

(a) failed to give importance to his office as a lawyer and
officer of the court by failing to appear three (3) times on scheduled
hearings, thus resulting in the trial court’s ruling that she had waived
her right to present her evidence;

(b) showed grave disrespect to the court and utter ignorance of
the Rules of , Court by filing a motion for postponement only one (1)
day before a scheduled hearing;

(c) exhibited gross negligence and brazen omission of his 
duties, by filing a motion for reconsideration and motion to withdraw
as counsel forty (40) days too late, despite knowing that the
reglementary period for filing a motion to reconsider is fifteen (15)
days from receipt of the order.

In his answer to the complaint, respondent stated that whatever
lapses and negligence he might have committed were never intentional but
were due to the heavy burden he shouldered as a campaign manager of
LAKAS-NUCD. Respondent likewise signified his. willingness to face
sanctions, for the lapses and negligence on his part.

On August 3, 2002 , the Board of Governors of the IBP passed
Resolution No. XV-2002-459 disposing of CBD Case No. 02-951 as follows:

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, and in view of violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Respondent is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of lav; for one (1) month with a stem
WARNING that a repetition shall warrant a more severe penalty.^[10]

On October 15, 2002, Miwa filed an appeal with the Office of the
Bar Confidant claiming that since she lost possession of a 3,700 square
meters beach resort with a market value of P4 million due to
respondent’s unprofessional conduct, a more severe penalty was called
for.

From the facts, it appears that respondent violated Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, with specific reference to Rule
18.03.^[11]  In fact,
respondent admitted his lapses and negligence before the IBP Committee
on Bar Discipline. Hence, the only question for our resolution is the
propriety of the penalty imposed.

In this case, however, we note that complainant is not exactly
without blame. Recall that she herself did not appear personally at the
several pre-trial conferences scheduled by the RTC. Under Rule 18,
Section 4^[12] of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is obligatory upon both a party, to appear
at pre-trial, given its mandatory character, may cause her to be
non-suited or considered as in default^[13].
Recall further that complainant was given every opportunity to fully
ventilate her defenses before the court and thus allow Civil Case No.
5147 to be decided completely on the merits. Yet, complainant never once
appeared at trial and was not even bothered by the several
postponements sought by her counsel until the trial court finally had to
rule that she had waived her right to present her evidence as a result
of her counsel’s dilatory tactics. Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. ^[14]
Complainant cannot now come to us to say that her erring lawyer be
penalized severely without any mitigating circumstances at all.

We note also respondent’s avernment that work as campaign
manager- for a political party during the 2001 elections took to much of his time, and that this circumstance might have understandably
prejudiced Ids client’s cause. This Court must again remind lawyers to
handle only as many cases as they can efficiently handle^[15]
. For it is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a
legal matter, he is also required to prepare adequately and give the
appropriate attention to his legal work. A lawyer owes entire devotion
to the cause of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense and
maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his learning and utmost
ability that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with law. By failing to show zeal and fidelity to Iiis client’s cause, we are constrained to conclude that respondent acted
with gross negligence. .

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA, is
SUSPENDED, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, for one (1)
month from the practice of law. He is also ORDERED to
pay a FINE of Two Thousand (P2,000) Pesos for gross negligence,
resulting in the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a
similar offense in the future will warrant a more severe penalty. Let
copies of this Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant and be spread
upon the records of Atty. Rene O. Medina.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the decision was received by respondent on October 29, 2003.

__29__ January 2004.

^[1] Rollo.pp. 1-7.

^[2] A lawyer shall make
bis legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession.

 ^[3]A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

 ^[4] A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it but duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

 ^[5] A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

 ^[6] Rollo, p,30.

 ^[7] Ibid.

 ^[8] Id.At 23-24.

 ^[9] Id.At 24-25.

 ^[10] Id. at 60.

 ^[11] A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

 ^[12] SEC. 4. Appearance of parties. – It
shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the
pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid
cause is shown therefore or if a representative shall appear in bis
behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement,
to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts, and of documents.

 ^[13] FERIA and NOCHE, I CIVIL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED (2001 Ed.) 473.

 ^[14] Laws come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleepy.

 ^[15] Legarda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457,18 March 1991,195 SCRA 418,428.