PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., ILOILO CITY BRANCH, HEREIN REPRE­SENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NAPOLEON T. SANTIAGO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. OLEEGARIO SANTISTEBAN, RESPONDENT.

The respondent, Atty. Olegario Santisteban, was charged by the
complainant, Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc., with malpractice for having been grossly remiss in the
performance of his duties and functions as an attorney. The complaint dated May 21, 1982 sought the
respondent’s disbarment or suspension from the Practice of law.

The instant administrative complaint arose from Civil Case No.
12945 filed by one Edgardo Tono for damages caused to his passenger jeepney and
auto repair shop by defendant Cyril Perez while driving the passenger truck of
his co-defendant Celestino Pioncio. A
third-party complaint was filed against the complainant (being the insurance
carrier of the truck owner).

The evidence discloses that complainant insurance company was
originally represented by Atty. Gingoyon. Due, however, to Atty. Gingoyon’s unavailability, complainant had to
obtain the services of other counsels, the last of whom was herein respondent
Atty. Olegario Santisteban. It is
undisputed that respondent had
been duly paid his attorney’s fees; however, he failed to appear during the
scheduled hearings to present evidence in defense of the insurance company and
likewise did not inform the latter as to the latest developments of the case. When a decision adverse to the company was
finally rendered on February 16, 1982, complainant insurance company was also
not advised of the same. Complainant
learned about the decision only on May 3, 1982 when the Deputy Provincial Sheriff
levied upon and garnished its bank deposit with the Far East Bank and Trust
Co., Inc. to satisfy the judgment and the sheriff’s fees. As a result thereof, ccmplainant was
constrained to plead and compromise with the other party in order that the garnishment
may be lifted.

Respondent admitted that he was paid for his legal services, and
alleged that he appeared during a hearing of the case upon the request of Atty.
Orcullo, the regular counsel of complainant, who had assured him that the case
was up for amicable settlement. According to the respondent, he was five minutes late for the said
hearing due to the distance he had to travel by public transportation. He, however, learned that the case had already been submitted for
decision so he decided to talk with the judge who advised him to file a motion
for reconsideration. He was not able to
notify the insurance company of the decision because he learned about it only
after the period to perfect the appeal had lapsed, since he was in Iloilo at
the time.

Complainant insurance company, in its reply, argued that it is
respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration despite instructions
from the judge to do so which prompted the trial court to render its
decision. Respondent explained that he
asked the judge to reconsider his order but he was told that there is very
little probability that he (the judge) would reconsider so respondent decided
to simply let the regular counsel of complainant handle the matter. Respondent further emphasized that he only
agreed to appear for the complainant in the belief that there would be an
amicable settlement such that he was caught unprepared by the sudden turn of
events. (pp. 2-3, Report and
Recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant).

The Office of the Bar Confidant filed its report in due time
recommending therein the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, for
lack of professional competence, diligence and fidelity to his client’s cause
and for having been untruthful and unfair to the Court by deliberately trying
to mislead it. (Page 5, Report)

We agree with the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Respondent admits that he appeared in behalf of the complainant
and that he received payment for such appearance, although he denies being the
regular counsel of the complainant. However, the record of the
case discloses that respondent was the last counsel of record of the
complainant. Respondent appeared not
only on February 4, 1982 for the trial of the case but also on September 25,
1981 during the pre-trial, billing the complainant for such appearances. (Annexes A, B, C & D to the complaint;
pp. 5-8, Records)

As counsel for the complainant, respondent was expected to
exercise a reasonable degree of diligence and competence in handling his client’s
cause (Adarne v. Aldaba, 83 SCRA 734). Respondent cannot shrink from such duty by conveniently pointing to
another lawyer whose statement (to confirm respondent’s assertion that he was
not the regular counsel of complainant) was not even presented in court. Respondent’s sheer denial cannot overcome
evidence clearly and positively showing that he was engaged as counsel by the
complainant.

Respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration despite
having been instructed to do so by the trial judge amounts to negligence. His explanation that the judge had already
advised him of the improbability of the decision being reconsidered is devoid
of merit. Respondent should have
nevertheless taken the appropriate steps in order to prevent the judgment from
becoming final and executory. Worse,
respondent did not bother to
inform the complainant of the status of
the case, not even after he
received a copy of the decision. He
should not have gone to Iloilo without leaving someone in his office to act on urgent
matters and to notify him of developments in the case he was handling. This is sheer lack of professional
sincerity. And even assuming that
respondent was not the regular counsel of the complainant, he should have
nonetheless apprised the regular counsel of the latest developments of the case
so that the latter could have acted accordingly to protect the complainant’s
interest. The fact that Atty. Orcullo,
allegedly the regular counsel of the complainant, also did not act on the case
would verily show the falsity of respondent’s allegations, a manifest attempt
on the part of respondent to
deceive the Court. As correctly pointed out by the Bar Confidant’s Office, respondent had not
only demonstrated his lack of professional competence, diligence and fidelity
to his client’s cause causing
material prejudice to the complainant
but he had also been untruthful to the court by deliberately trying to mislead
it. Respondent’s suspension from the
practice of law is, therefore, in
order.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Olegario Santisteban is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from the date of his
receipt of this resolution. This
decision is immediately executory. Let
copies of this resolution be attached to his personal record and circulated
among the different courts.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.