FIL-GARCIA, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, FILOMENO GARCIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FERNANDO CRESENTE C. HERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT.

Fil-Garcia versus Hernandez

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Fil-Garcia, Inc., a construction corporation represented by its President and General Manager, Filomeno Garcia, against its former counsel, Atty. Fernando Cresente C. Hernandez. The complainant charges the respondent with malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The case matters because it is a clean, teachable illustration of a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of what happens when a lawyer gambles on motions for extension of time and then keeps his client in the dark about the consequences.

Procedural History

The case began not as an ethics matter but as a civil suit. The complainant sued its client Magdalena Villasi for recovery of a sum of money with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, and the trial court ruled in the complainant's favor. Villasi appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and rendered judgment against the complainant. The complainant, now represented by the respondent, sought reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied. The respondent then filed three successive motions for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, and eventually filed the petition out of time. The Supreme Court denied the extensions and the petition, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals became final and executory.

Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. After a mandatory conference, the investigating commissioner of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but reduced the penalty to suspension for six months, and transmitted the case and its records to the Supreme Court for final action pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 12(b) of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court then reviewed the matter and rendered this decision.

Facts

Sometime in 1990, the complainant entered into an agreement with Magdalena Villasi for the completion of the construction of a condominium building owned by the latter in Quezon City. Controversy arose over billing and payments, and on March 11, 1991, the complainant sued Villasi before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, then represented by Atty. Bernardo Ligsay. On June 26, 1996, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the complainant, ordering Villasi to pay actual damages and unpaid accomplishment billings, the value of unused building materials, moral damages, and attorney's fees.

Villasi appealed, and on November 20, 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered the complainant to return an overpayment, to pay for unpaid construction materials, and to pay liquidated damages. The complainant moved for reconsideration, this time through its new counsel, the respondent. The Court of Appeals denied the motion on April 27, 2001, and the respondent received a copy on May 8, 2001, giving him until May 23, 2001 to file an appeal by certiorari.

Instead of filing the appeal on time, the respondent filed three successive motions for extension of time. In the first, he cited his commitments as counsel for a mayoralty candidate and a senatorial candidate. In the second, he claimed he fell ill and needed extended bed rest. In the third, he admitted he had severely underestimated the time needed to complete the petition because of other urgent legal matters. He finally filed the petition on July 21, 2001. The Supreme Court denied the first motion for lack of a statement of material dates, denied the second and third motions because the first had already been denied, and ultimately denied the petition for failure to appeal within the reglementary period and for failure to state material dates. The judgment of the Court of Appeals became final and executory. Although the respondent received a copy of the resolution denying the petition on November 15, 2001, he forwarded it to the complainant's office only on June 16, 2002, some seven months later.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent's filing of three successive motions for extension of time, on the careless assumption that each would be granted and without informing himself of the Court's action, constitutes inexcusable negligence and a violation of his duty of competence and diligence.
• Whether or not the respondent's failure to immediately inform the complainant of the denial of the petition, a delay of seven months, violates his duty to keep the client informed of the status of the case.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months is proper.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

This is the general standard against which the respondent's conduct in handling the appeal is measured.

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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

This is the specific rule the Court applies to the respondent's successive motions for extension and his failure to monitor the Court's action on them.

Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

This is the rule breached by the seven-month delay in informing the complainant of the denial of the petition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's conduct fell short of his obligation to serve his client with competence and diligence under Canon 18. His act of filing three successive motions for extension of time on the careless assumption that each would be granted, without taking care to inform himself of the Court's action thereon, constituted inexcusable negligence. The Court stressed that motions for extension of time are not granted as a matter of course but lie in the sound discretion of the court, so it is incumbent on any movant to inquire timely from the Clerk of Court. The respondent also knowingly referred to Rule 65 in his belated petition as an afterthought in a desperate attempt to salvage the appeal. The Court added that when a lawyer finds it impracticable to continue representing a client, he should inform the client and ask to be allowed to withdraw so the client may engage another counsel who can act in time.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent violated Rule 18.04. It took him seven months from receipt of the resolution denying the petition before he informed the complainant of the same, and the Court found this inexcusable.

On the third issue, the Court found no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, and held that the penalty of suspension for six months was correct, considering that the respondent humbly admitted his fault in not immediately informing the complainant of the status of the case.

Doctrine

A lawyer must serve his client with competence and diligence under Canon 18, and must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him under Rule 18.03; negligence in connection therewith renders him liable. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free, because his actions or omissions are binding upon his client.

Motions for extension of time to file a pleading are not granted as a matter of course but lie in the sound discretion of the court. A movant must exercise due diligence to inform himself as soon as possible of the Court's action on his motion by timely inquiry from the Clerk of Court; if he neglects to do so, he runs the risk of time running out on him and will have nobody but himself to blame.

A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue representing a client should inform the client of his predicament and ask that he be allowed to withdraw, so the client may engage another counsel who can study the situation and work out a solution.

Under Rule 18.04, a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors and suspended Atty. Fernando Cresente C. Hernandez from the practice of law for six months, with copies of the Decision attached to his personal record with the Office of the Bar Confidant and furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all its chapters and to all the courts in the land.

Remember This

Memorize this line: motions for extension of time are not granted as a matter of course but lie in the sound discretion of the court, so the movant must inquire timely of the Clerk of Court or bear the consequences himself. Examiners use this case to test Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04, particularly the duties of competence, diligence, and keeping the client informed.