IN RE: ORDER IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. SC-25419 TO 25422 (PEOPLE V. GEAM HENRY REUYAN Y VALDELLON), COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ADONIS EDGAR ANGELO A. MACAM, RESPONDENT.

Macam versus Reuyan

The Case

This is an administrative case against a lawyer, Atty. Adonis Edgar Angelo A. Macam, arising from his repeated failure to appear at the scheduled hearings of a criminal case in which he was counsel for the accused, Gearn Henry V. Reuyan. The Family Court that tried the criminal case cited him for contempt, fined him, and referred him to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for appropriate action. The case matters because it is a clean, modern application of the lawyer's twin duties — to the court, to assist in the speedy administration of justice, and to the client, to represent him with fidelity and zeal — under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, and it shows how the Court calibrates the penalty for a first-time offender.

Procedural History

The case began in the Family Court, Branch 6, Santa Cruz, Laguna, which was trying the criminal cases against the accused. When Atty. Macam failed to appear at the hearing set on February 23, 2023, and had caused the postponement of the hearing for the third time, the Family Court, in its Order of the same date, held him in contempt, imposed a fine of 3,000 pesos, directed the accused to engage the services of another counsel, reset the cross-examination of the private complainant, and referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Before the Integrated Bar, the Investigating Commissioner ordered Atty. Macam to file an Answer. He asked for an extension of time, then filed his Answer. Since the facts and issues were not disputed, the Investigating Commissioner proceeded to a summary recommendation and found him guilty of a light offense under Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, recommending the penalty of reprimand. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar modified the recommendation, imposing mandatory rendition of community service for twenty hours and reprimand with a stern warning. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which affirms with modification.

Facts

Atty. Macam was the counsel for the accused Reuyan in criminal cases pending before the Family Court. Three hearings were postponed at his instance. For the first hearing, set on December 15, 2022, he did not appear because he had a previous commitment to attend a hearing in Nueva Ecija. For the second hearing, set on February 2, 2023, he said he was sick and furnished the court with a medical certificate; he also asked, through email, that he be allowed to attend online, but the court did not grant the request and instead moved the hearing to February 23, 2023.

On February 19, 2023, Atty. Macam sent an Urgent Motion to Cancel Hearing, explaining that as early as January 2, 2023 he had already booked a family trip to Palawan for February 21 to 23, 2023. He did not appear on February 23, 2023.

The Family Court then issued its Order of February 23, 2023, citing him for contempt, imposing a fine of 3,000 pesos, directing the accused to engage the services of another counsel, and resetting the cross-examination of the private complainant to April 13, 2023. The court referred Atty. Macam to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Macam is guilty of a light offense under Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for his repeated postponements and failure to appear at the scheduled hearings.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines should be affirmed, or modified in light of the mitigating circumstance of first offense.

Applicable Provisions

Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 2. The responsible and accountable lawyer. — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law and conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. As an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client with fidelity and zeal within the bounds of the law and the CPRA.

This is the provision the Court found violated, because the lawyer's duty to the court includes assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Canon VI, Section 35 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 35. Light offenses. – Light offenses include: (f) Other similar or analogous infractions of the CPRA.

This classifies the infraction as a light offense, which determines the range of available sanctions.

Canon VI, Section 37 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 37. Sanctions. — (c) If the respondent is found guilty of a light offense, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: (1) A fine within the range of PHP 1,000.00 to PHP 35,000.00; (2) Censure; or (3) Reprimand. In addition to the above sanctions in paragraph (c), the respondent may also be required to do community service or service in the IBP legal aid program. In all instances, when the offense involves money or property owed, which is intrinsically linked to the lawyer-client relationship, the respondent shall be ordered to return the same.

This supplies the menu of penalties for a light offense, within which the Court chose a fine.

Canon VI, Section 38 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 38. Modifying circumstances. — In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court may, in its discretion, appreciate the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances: (a) Mitigating circumstances: (1) First offense, except in charges of gross misconduct, bribery or corruption, grossly immoral conduct, misappropriating a client's funds or properties, sexual abuse, and sale, distribution, possession and/or use of illegal drugs or substances;

This allowed the Court to treat Atty. Macam's status as a first-time offender as a mitigating circumstance.

Canon VI, Section 39 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 39. Manner of imposition. — If one (1) or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed under the CPRA.

This governs how the mitigating circumstance lowers the imposable fine.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the finding of guilt. Atty. Macam asked for the postponement of three hearings. His repeated postponements and delays showed that he failed to conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The Court stressed the concrete harm: his act delayed the cross-examination of the private complainant, burdened the accused, who was directed to find another lawyer, and ultimately delayed the prosecution of the case. He was therefore guilty of a light offense under Canon III, Section 2, in relation to Canon VI, Section 35, paragraph f, of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

On the second issue, the Court modified the penalty. It noted the mitigating circumstance that the respondent is a first-time offender, and imposed a fine of 17,500 pesos with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely, in accordance with Section 39 of the Code. The Court thus replaced the community service and reprimand recommended by the Board of Governors with a fine and a warning.

Doctrine

A lawyer is an officer of the court and must conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Repeated requests for postponement and failure to appear at scheduled hearings, without sufficient justification, violate this duty and constitute a light offense under Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

The delay of a single proceeding is not trivial: it delays the cross-examination of a witness, burdens the accused with the need to secure new counsel, and delays the prosecution of the case. These are the concrete harms the Court weighs.

For a light offense, the available sanctions are a fine within the range of 1,000 pesos to 35,000 pesos, censure, or reprimand, and the Court may additionally require community service or service in the Integrated Bar legal aid program. Where the respondent is a first-time offender and no aggravating circumstance is present, the Court may appreciate that mitigating circumstance and impose a fine not less than half of the minimum prescribed.

Disposition

Atty. Macam was found guilty of violating Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and was fined 17,500 pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely; the Decision is immediately executory upon receipt.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing: a lawyer's duty to the court includes conscientiously assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and repeated postponements that delay a case are a light offense. Examiners use this case to test the classification of offenses and the calibration of penalties under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, especially the treatment of first offense as a mitigating circumstance.