EDISON G. CHENG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. AGRAVANTE, RESPONDENT.

Cheng versus Agravante

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Edison G. Cheng, the general manager of a corporation, against his former counsel, Attorney Alexander M. Agravante. The complaint was lodged with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and it charges the lawyer with negligence in handling his client's labor appeal and with misrepresenting the date of his receipt of an adverse decision. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the two great duties a lawyer owes — candor to the court under Canon 10 and competence and diligence to the client under Canon 18 — and shows how a single false certification and a single late filing can cost a lawyer his license for a year.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and was assigned to Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay for investigation. After proceedings, Commissioner Dulay submitted his report recommending that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two months, with an admonition that a similar offense would be dealt with more severely. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines approved that report and recommendation. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which, finding the recommended penalty too light, increased it.

Facts

Attorney Agravante served as counsel for a corporation in a labor case filed before the National Labor Relations Commission's Regional Arbitration Branch in Davao City by a former employee. On June 18, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the employee and ordered the corporation to pay separation pay and backwages. A copy of that decision was received at the respondent's law office on September 8, 1998, as shown by the registry return card. The period to appeal expired on September 18, 1998. Yet the respondent filed the Memorandum of Appeal only on September 22, 1998 — four days late. The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal, and in doing so observed that the respondent's counsel had given an inaccurate certification that he received the decision on September 10, 1998.

The corporation terminated the services of Attorney Agravante and, through new lawyers, demanded compensation for the pecuniary damages it had suffered from his negligence. When the respondent showed no intention of responding, Cheng filed an affidavit-complaint with the Commission on Bar Discipline.

The evidence before the investigating commissioner included the testimony of the corporation's regional sales manager and of another employee, who testified that on September 21, 1998 she delivered the appeal bond to the respondent's law office at four in the afternoon, after the office had assured her she could submit it that day. The respondent, for his part, claimed he was out of town on September 8, returned on September 10, and assumed from markings on the envelope that this was the date of receipt. The investigating commissioner found that the respondent did not even cross-examine the witness on the delivery of the bond, and that the registry return card showed receipt on September 8. He concluded that the respondent had been negligent and had misled the National Labor Relations Commission in his certification.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent lawyer is guilty of negligence in failing to perfect his client's appeal within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the respondent lawyer violated his duty of candor to the court by certifying a false date of receipt of the adverse decision.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is the proper penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

This canon frames the respondent's false certification of the date of receipt, which was meant to make a late appeal appear timely.

Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

This rule is the exact standard the respondent breached when he stated in his Memorandum of Appeal that he received the decision on September 10, 1998.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

This canon measures the respondent's handling of the appeal, which he allowed to lapse.

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

This rule supplies the ground of liability for the late filing of the Memorandum of Appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent was negligent. His filing of the Memorandum of Appeal four days after the deadline showed that his efforts fell short of the diligence required of a lawyer, and his failure to perfect the appeal within the prescribed period constituted negligence and malpractice proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. His excuse — that it was not his place to appeal without express instructions from his client — did not persuade the Court, because he could easily have withdrawn the appeal had the client later decided not to pursue it. Neither did the belated filing mitigate his liability; on the contrary, it showed ignorance, for as a lawyer he ought to know that an appeal filed beyond the reglementary period would surely be struck down.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent violated his duty of candor. Before lawyers are admitted to the bar, they must solemnly swear to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that oath is not a mere ceremony or formality but a sacred trust that every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. The Court found that the respondent lied when he said he received the Labor Arbiter's decision on September 10, 1998, in order to make it appear that his Memorandum of Appeal was filed on time. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth, and the respondent clearly failed to live up to this duty.

On the third issue, the Court found that the recommended penalty of two months was too light. It compared the case to a prior decision in which a lawyer was suspended for one year and fined ten thousand pesos for serious neglect of duty and misrepresentation before the court, and held that the present case was on all fours with that precedent. The Court was thus constrained to increase the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Doctrine

A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court under Canon 10, and under Rule 10.01 he shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. A false certification of the date of receipt of an adverse decision, made to make a late appeal appear timely, is a lie that violates this duty.

A lawyer owes his client competence and diligence under Canon 18, and under Rule 18.03 he shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is negligence and malpractice, and the lawyer's claim that he awaited express instructions from the client is no defense, since he could have filed the appeal and later withdrawn it.

The duty of candor is not a mere ceremony or formality to be forgotten after admission to the bar; it is a sacred trust that every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all times, for a lawyer must be a disciple of truth.

Disposition

The Court suspended Attorney Alexander M. Agravante from the practice of law for one year and fined him ten thousand pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth, and that a false certification of the date of receipt, coupled with a late appeal, violates both Canon 10 and Canon 18. Examiners like to use this case in legal ethics to test the duties of candor to the court and diligence to the client, and to illustrate the penalty of one year's suspension plus a ten thousand peso fine for their breach.