DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOHNNY LANDERO, RESPONDENT.

Davao Import Distributors versus Landero

The Case

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Davao Import Distributors, Incorporated, through its branch manager, against its former counsel, Attorney Johnny Landero. The complainant charges him with professional misconduct and violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, arising from his handling of a civil case for the recovery of an air-conditioning unit. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the twin duties every lawyer owes: competence and diligence to the client under Canon 18, and respect for the speedy administration of justice under Canon 12. It shows that neglect of a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer, and letting an extended period lapse without filing the pleading or explaining why, are both administratively punishable.

Procedural History

The disciplinary complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline found the respondent negligent and recommended suspension from the practice of law for three months. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted and approved that recommendation but increased the period of suspension to six months. The respondent moved for reconsideration, and the Board denied it. The entire record was then transmitted to the Supreme Court for its final action, and the Court rendered its own ruling adopting the Board's resolution.

Facts

Sometime in August 1997, the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to file a complaint against Angelita Librando and Juanito Du for the recovery of a split-type air-conditioner, with replevin and damages, before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of General Santos City. Librando had purchased the unit on installment for 86,740 pesos and installed it in her beauty salon, which was located in a commercial building owned by Du. When Librando failed to pay and her salon closed, the unit was left on the premises, and Du refused to release it, claiming a lien for unpaid rentals.

On the scheduled date of pre-trial, the respondent did not appear, and because he never informed the complainant or its branch manager of the setting, they did not appear either. The case was dismissed for non-suit, and Du was allowed to present evidence on his counterclaim. The trial court then ordered the complainant to pay Du 70,000 pesos in moral damages, 5,000 pesos in attorney's fees, and 5,000 pesos in litigation expenses. The respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed. The complainant then gave the respondent 1,900 pesos for docket fees so that he could file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. He filed only a motion for extension of time, and when he never filed the petition itself, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

In his defense, the respondent claimed that he and the branch manager had agreed to abandon the case, that the branch manager later took the case folder, and that out of pity he filed the motion for extension even though the period had already lapsed. The records, however, showed that the Court of Appeals had in fact granted him an extension of fifteen days, and that he simply chose not to file the petition despite having received the docket fees.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for deliberately failing to appear at the pre-trial, causing the dismissal of his client's complaint and the assessment of damages on its counterclaim.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for failing to file the petition for review after obtaining an extension of time and receiving the docket fees from his client.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

This is the standard the respondent failed to meet when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.

Section 2 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff - Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff's motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.

Had the respondent moved for dismissal under this rule, the complaint would have been dismissed without prejudice, preserving the client's right to refile.

Section 3 of the same Rule provides:

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

Because of the respondent's absence, the dismissal fell under this section and operated as an adjudication on the merits, cutting off the client's right to refile.

Canon 12 and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

Canon 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

These govern the respondent's failure to file the petition for review after securing an extension.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent was administratively liable. As counsel, he was duty-bound to handle the case with zeal and due diligence. Even assuming that he and the branch manager had agreed to abandon the case, he should still have attended the pre-trial to formally move for its withdrawal under Section 2 of Rule 17, which would have produced a dismissal without prejudice. Instead, his deliberate absence produced a dismissal with the effect of an adjudication on the merits, curtailing the client's right to refile, and it allowed the client to be declared in default on Du's counterclaim, depriving it of the chance to refute the claim for damages.

On the second issue, the Court likewise held him liable. His explanation that he abandoned the petition because it was already out of time was unacceptable, because the records showed that the Court of Appeals had granted him an extension of fifteen days and he simply chose not to file. The Court stressed that a lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court, and that sympathy toward a client does not justify misleading the court about the date of receipt of a decision to make a motion appear timely.

Doctrine

First, under Canon 18, every lawyer must serve the client with competence and diligence and must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. Second, a lawyer who wishes to abandon a case must formally move for its dismissal in court, because a dismissal upon the plaintiff's motion under Section 2 of Rule 17 is without prejudice, while a dismissal due to the plaintiff's fault under Section 3 operates as an adjudication on the merits. Third, under Canon 12 and Rule 12.03, a lawyer who obtains an extension of time must either file the pleading or explain why he did not; letting the period lapse without either is a violation. Fourth, a lawyer is an officer of the court and must never mislead it, and sympathy for a client is no excuse for doing so.

Disposition

The Court adopted the Board of Governors' resolution and suspended Attorney Johnny Landero from the practice of law for six months, effective immediately, with the direction to report the date of his receipt of the resolution and with copies furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar, and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a lawyer who obtains an extension of time must file the pleading or explain why he did not, and a lawyer who abandons a case must move for dismissal in court rather than simply fail to appear. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and remedial law to test Canon 18 diligence, Rule 12.03, and the distinction between a dismissal without prejudice under Section 2 and a dismissal on the merits under Section 3 of Rule 17.