CALIXTO BALLOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. PAQUITO G. BALASABAS, RESPONDENT.

Calixto Ballos,
a forty-year old computer in a surveyor’s office, charged Atty. Paquito G. Balasabas (admitted to
the bar in 1962) with unethical conduct and negligence in handling defendants’
appeal in an ejectment case.

Civil Case No. 1962-A of the city court of Davao
City was a forcible entry case filed by Hector M. Llamas against sixteen
alleged squatters on his lots located at the New Society (Sto.
Niño)
Village, Matina Aplaya, Davao City.

Ballos was not a defendant in that
case.  However, being apparently in the
same situation as the defendants, he was desirous that a decision, favorable to
them, should be rendered in that case. 
The city court adjudicated the case in favor of Llamas.  The defendants were represented by Atty. Octavio Fernandez.

Not satisfied with the services of Atty. Fernandez, the
defendants and Ballos replaced him and hired Atty. Balasabas.   To
prosecute the appeal, Ballos, in his behalf and as
representative of the defendants, paid to Atty. Balasabas
the total sum of P1,563.50, itemized as follows:

The appeal was duly perfected by Atty. Balasabas.  He arranged the execution of a supersedeas bond by a surety company.  The appeal was docketed in the Court of First
Instance of Davao in June, 1973.  As there was no movement in the case and
Atty. Balasabas did not do anything to set it for
hearing, Ballos sent a telegram to this Court,
requesting that the lower court be directed to expedite the hearing of the
case.

That telegram provoked Judge Vicente N. Cusi,
Jr. to set the case for hearing on January
18, 1974.  At the hearing on
that date, Atty. Balasabas made his one and only
appearance in the case.  What transpired
at that brief hearing is shown below:

“ATTY. BALASABAS:  This is an appealed case, your Honor.

“COURT:  I was busy with other cases.  You know the case is for Branch II and there
are many cases.  Until
I received the basic communication by indorsement
from the Supreme Court, asking me if I could give the telegram preferential
attention.  x x x.  This is the telegram:

‘Due to coercion by the complainants, our case on appeal in the
Court of First Instance, Sala of Judge Cusi was erroneously decided by the city court to which
Hector Llamas has no title, no improvement and no award from the NAFCO on the
property by first indorsement of the Presidential
Assistant . . . ‘

This was referred to the
Supreme Court.  From the Supreme Court,
it was referred to me.  The information asking me if I could expedite action on this.  Immediately, I answered:

‘The records of the case are now in the possession of the
undersigned and he is studying as well as the transcript for early
disposition.’

Hence, I set the case
for argument this morning.  The one
who sent the wire is (was) Calixto Ballos.

“ATTY. BALASABAS:  We are very sorry, your
Honor.

“COURT:  There is nothing to be sorry about.

“ATTY. BALASABAS:  If I was consulted, I will not allow my
client to send that wire.

“COURT:  I was not intending to act on this immediately
because I have other records (cases) but because of the telegram, I acted.  What is your argument?

“ATTY. BALASABAS:  Considering, your
Honor, (that) there is already a memorandum submitted by other counsel (Atty.
Fernandez in the city court), I might just as well submit this case for
resolution.

“COURT:  Who is the other party?

“ATTY. BALASABAS:  Atty. Durante.

“COURT:  There is already a memorandum for plaintiff-appellee.  So, both
of you are submitting the case for resolution?

“ATTY. BALASABAS:  Yes, your Honor.

“COURT:  All right, submitted.”

The next day, January 19, Judge Cusi decided
the case by affirming the city court’s decision against the defendants.  They rehired their former lawyer, Atty.
Fernandez, to appeal the case to the Court of Appeals.  Again, they lost the case in that Court.

Seventeen days after Judge Cusi decided
the case, or on February 5, 1974,
Ballos denounced Atty. Balasabas
to the President of the Philippines
“as a lawyer (who) should not exist in our new society.”

That denunciation was referred to this Court.  Atty. Balasabas, in
his answer to the complaint, branded it as malicious.  During the investigation, he accounted for
the sum of P1,563.50 by stating that his attorney’s
fees amounted to P730 and he paid P404.30 as premium.  He accounted for the balance of P429.20 by
stating that he posted an appeal bond of P60 and spent some unspecified amounts
for getting copies of the records of the case and for the registration of the
mortgage deed executed by Ballos in favor of the
surety company.  The respondent prepared
and notarized that mortgage deed which was a sort of counterbond.  It was registered in Tagum,
Davao del Norte, which is fifty-five kilometers away
from Davao City.

Assuming that Atty. Balasabas paid
twenty pesos for docketing the appeal in the Court of First Instance and
deposited fifty pesos as appeal bond (Sec. 3, Rule 40 and sec. 5[a][12], Rule
141, Rules of Court.  An appeal bond of
P60 would be an undertaking, not a cash bond), that would leave the sum of
P359.20 as the amount which he spent in registering the mortgage and getting
copies of the records of the case. 
(Atty. Fernandez did not turn over to him his personal records).

Ballos alleged in his complaint that
Atty. Balasabas should have spent P120 for the
transcripts of the testimonies in the city court.  The respondent did not get those
transcripts.  His accounting of the
balance of P429.20 is not quite clear and exact.

Apart from the hazy accounting, Ballos
complains that the services rendered by the respondent were not satisfactory
because he appeared in court only once and he did not submit any memorandum or
oral argument.

The respondent claims that “with the perfection of the
appeal and the submission of the supersedeas bond to
stay the execution”, he had adequately performed his commitment to his
clients; that there was no necessity of filing a new memorandum since the
memorandum of Atty. Fernandez in the city court was sufficient for the purpose,
and that he was not able to argue orally, although he was prepared to do so,
because Judge Cusi was busy with other cases.

 The issue is whether
disciplinary action should be taken against the respondent in connection with
his handling of the appeal.

He testified that Ballos admitted to
him that he (Ballos) was constrained to file a
complaint against the respondent because the defendants in the ejectment suit suspected that Ballos
had misappropriated the money which they had entrusted to him.  Respondent said that Ballos
was willing to withdraw the complaint provided that he (the respondent)
returned P500 to Ballos or provided that the respondent
paid the back premiums for two years on the surety bond so that the lot
mortgaged by Ballos to the bonding company could be
released.  The respondent rejected the
proposals of Ballos. 
He also said that at the outset he told Ballos
that the defendants had very slim chances of winning the appeal.

Ballos manifested at the commencement
of the investigation that he would withdraw his complaint if the mortgage on
his lot were cancelled.

After a study of the evidence and the contentions of the parties,
our conclusion is that the respondent is not entitled to a complete
exoneration, as recommended by the Acting Solicitor General and the
investigating fiscal.

The respondent should have realized when he accepted the case and
after he had received the sum of P1,563.50 (the
hard-earned savings of his poor clients), that they had pinned their hopes on
him for reversing the city court’s unfavorable verdict.  The respondent should have known that,
because his clients changed lawyers, they wanted a more vigorous and aggressive
advocacy of their cause.  If, according
to the respondent, the defendants’ case was weak and could hardly prosper on
appeal, he could have advised them to continue the retainer of their first
lawyer, Atty. Fernandez, who was more knowledgeable about the case than the
respondent.

Aside from perfecting the appeal and staying the execution
pending appeal, the respondent really did nothing in the case.  More­over, he did not render an unimpeachable
accounting of the moneys which he had received in installments.

While the respondent does not merit disbarment or suspension,
because he did not commit any gross misconduct or dishonesty, he should at
least be given an admonition or warning to be more conscientious in the
performance of his duties to his clients and to be more scrupulous and
circumspect in handling their funds.

WHEREFORE, the respondent is admonished to be more careful
and discreet in handling the funds of his clients and to be more zealous and
dedicated in attending to their interests. 
A copy of this decision should be attached to respondent’s personal
record.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., concur.