Adm. Case No. 1411. August 24, 1984
OBDULIA L. PRADO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELISEO A. RAZON, RESPONDENT.
AQUINO, J.:
1954) with gross negligence in not seasonably informing her of the lower
court’s decision.
The record shows that Obdulia Prado appealed to the Court of First
Instance of Manila her conviction for slander by the city court of
Manila which sentenced her to pay a fine of P50, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
For that appeal, her compadre engaged the services of
respondent Razon who submitted a memorandum for her. The trial court
rendered a decision dated November 6, 1974, affirming the judgment of
the city court. The decision was received on November 8, 1974 by the
clerk of Councilor Fernandez at Room 204, Manila City Hall, which
respondent Razon was occupying as his office, and delivered to him on
November 14, 1974 or six days later.
Respondent Razon had until November 23, 1974 within which to file a
motion for reconsideration or to appeal. However, that reglementary
period elapsed without any action by the respondent. It was only on
November 25, or two days later, when Prado received a copy of the
decision by mail sent by lawyer Razon.
Obdulia L. Prado filed the instant administrative case for disbarment.
In his answer, respondent Razon claims that Prado took from him all the
papers of the case and never came back to inquire about the status of
her appeal. Prado denied this allegation.
When respondent receive a copy of the decision, he waited for Prado to
come but she never did. He then went to the Court of First Instance to
ascertain her address. Thereafter, he mailed the decision to her.
The credibility of respondent’s explanation is destroyed by his
admission that he had really committed a mistake in handling his
client’s case because he was beset with his own problem regarding the
ejectment suit filed against him by the owner of the house at 297 Shaw
Boulevard, Mandaluyong, which he was renting. His mind was then
occupied with locating a place where he could transfer. He begged the
indulgence of this Court.
After due investigation, the Solicitor General recommended respondent’s
suspension for not less than two months because his negligence
prejudiced his client.
It is obvious that the attorney-client relationship between Prado and
respondent arose merely out of accommodation through a mutual friend.
There was no formal professional agreement between counsel and client.
That fact notwithstanding, respondent cannot justifiably claim that when
Prado got the papers from him, his services were being dispensed with.
If that was his surmise, he should have formally withdrawn from the
case with Prado’s consent. Since he did not withdraw, he was not
relieved of the obligation of apprising Prado immediately of the
decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent is censured for his negligence. A copy of this
decision should be attached to his personal record in the Bar
Confidant’s Office.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., (Chairman), on official leave.