OCA CIRCULAR NO. 77-2004, May 27, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Decision of the Second Division of this Court dated
August 28, 2003 in Administrative Case No. 5474, entitled “Redentor S.
Jar din vs. Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr.”, to wit:

“Law is a profession and lawyers are professionals. Implicit in
professionalism is a certain level of competence and dedication. Far
from measuring up to the standards of a lawyer’s conduct set in the Code of Professional Responsibility which are also the hallmarks of professionalism, the lawyer charged in this case virtually abandoned his client’s cause.

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Redentor
S. Jardin against respondent A try. Deogracias Villar, Jr., who was his
counsel in a case, for the latter’s failure to formally offer the
documentary exhibits, which failure resulted in the dismissal of the
case.

The complainant Redentor S. Jardin is the plaintiff in Civil
Case No. 21480 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City. A building
contractor, he engaged the services of the respondent to represent him
in the case which is for the collection of the sum of One Hundred Five
Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four and 80/100 Pesos (P105,744.80),
representing the alleged unpaid contract price for the repair of the
house of the defendants in the case.^[1]
The case went its course, but later despite several extensions of time
given by the trial court, the respondent failed to file his formal offer
of exhibits.Consequently, on May 7, 2001, the trial court issued an
Order the full text of which reads as follows:

When this case was called for continuation of hearing, Atty. Rodrigo C. Reyes, counsel for the defendants manifested that up to this
date, Atty. Villar, Jr., counsel for the plaintiff has not formally
offer (sic) the documentary exhibits for the plaintiff in writing as
Order(sf’c) by the Court.

Records show that on February 26, 2001, Atty. Villar, Jr. was
given an extension period of TEN (10) days within which to formally
offer the documentary exhibits in writing copy furnished Atty. Reyes,
counsel for the defendants who was given a period of Five (5) days
within which to comment and/or oppose the admissibility of the said
exhibits and set the continuation of the hearing of this case for the
presentation of evidence for the defendant on March 30, 2001.

On March 30, 2001, when this case was called for hearing
records show that Atty. Viilar, Jr., counsel for the plaintiff has not
complied yet with the formal offer of documentary exhibits for the
plaintiff and again, in the interest of justice, the Court give (sic) Atty.
Vi!!ar, Jr. another period of TEN (10) days within which to formally
offer the documentary exhibits in writing and set the continuation of
the hearing of this case for today for the presentation of evidence for
the defendant.

Records show however, that on this date, the said counsel for the plaintiff have (sic) not
complied with the submission of documentary exhibits for the plaintiff.
For lack of interest on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff to
further prosecute this case, upon motion of Atty. Reyes the oral
testimonial evidence submitted by the plaintiff is hereby ordered
WITHDRAWN from the records and upon further motion of ordered WITHDRAWN
from the records and upon further motion of Atty. Reyes, this case is
hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of interest on the part of the
plaintiff to further prosecute this case.

Upon motion of Atty. Reyes, set the continuation of the
hearing of this case for the presentation of evidence on the counter
claim on the part of the defendant on June 15, 2001 at 8:30 o’clock in
the morning.^[3]

The dismissal of the collection case prompted the complainant to file a verified Affidavit-Complaint ^[4]dated
July 4, 2001 for the disbarment of the respondent with this Court,
wherein he also alleged the developments which transpired after the
dismissal of the case, viz: that he already terminated the
seivices of the respondent as his counsel; that the respondent failed to
return the originals of the documentary exhibits entrusted to him; and
that the respondent finally handed over the documents only as an
aftermath of a heated argument he had with the complainant’s wife.

In a Resolution ^[5]dated September 10, 2001 , this Court required the respondent
fo comment on the complaint against him. However, the respondent failed
to file his comment despite two (2) extensions of time granted to him.
Thus, the Court resolved to dispense with the filing of the respondent’s
comment and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for’ investigation, report and recommendation.^[6]

Similarly, the respondent failed to file his answer as required
by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Hence, the averments
made, as well as the evidence submitted by the complainant, are
undisputed.

Investigating Commissioner Attorney Milagros V. San Juan, IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, found the respondent liable for negligence
and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months, with the- warning that a similar conduct in the future
will be dealt with more severely. The salient portions of the Report and Recommendation dated March 4, 2003 of the Investigating Commissioner are as follows:

Complainant’s contention that respondent Villar failed to file
plaintiffs Forma! Offer of Documentary Evidence is substantiated by the
Orders dated 26 February 2001 , 30 March 2001 and 7 May 2001 (Annexes
7, 9 and 10 respectively). The Order dated 7 May 2001 (Annex 10 of
complainant’s Affidavit) reads:

It is clear from the above-quoted Order that it was the
failure of respondent Viilar to file the Formal Offer of Documentary
Exhibits which led to the dismissai of Civil Case No. 21430 to the
prejudice of respondent’s client, herein complainant. Respondent Villar
has faiied to offer any explanation for his failure to file the Formal
Offer of Exhibits within the several extensions of time given him by the
trial court to do so. There is no doubt that it was part of
respondent’s obligation to complainant as the tetter’s counsel of record
in Civil Case No. 21480, to file said Formal Offer of Documentary
Exhibits, and respondent’s dereliction of this duty has prejudiced the
interests of respondent’s client. In accepting Civil Case No. 21480, it
was respondent’s obligation to take all measures to protect the
interests of his client in accordance with Canon (sic) 18 & 19 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility but it was respondent’s
negligence or omission which has caused damage to such interests.^[8]

In the Resolution dated April 26, 2003, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved said Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.

We are also in full accord with the findingss and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

At the outset, we find particularly glaring the respondent’s
disregard of the resolution of this Court directing him to file his
comment on the complaint. He exhibited a similar attitude in failing
file his answer when required by the Commission on Bar Discipline. The
repeated cavalier conduct belies impudence and lack of respect for the
authority of this Court.

The record clearly shows that the respondent has been languid in
the performance of his duties as counsel for the complainant. He was
given by the trial court several extensions of time: first, an extension of ten (10) days from February 26, 2001 or until March 8, 2001, and; second, another
extension often (10) days from March 30, 2001, when the case was called
for hearing and the court noted that no such formal offer had been
filed then, or until April 9, 2001. It must also be emphasized that
there was an interim period of twenty two (22) days between March 8,
2001 and March 30, 2001 , and another interval of twenty-seven (27) days
from April 9, 2001 until May 7, 2001 when the Order dismissing
the case was issued. Effectively, therefore, respondent had three (3)
months and nine (9) days within which to file the formal offer of
exhibits.^[7] The respondent did not bother to give an explanation even in mitigation or extenuation of his inaction.

Manifestly, the respondent has fallen short of the competence’
and diligence required of every member of the Bar. The pertinent Canons
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.

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT
AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANNON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE DILIGENCE.

. . . .

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

. . . .

CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

It is indeed dismaying to note the respondent’s patent violation
of his duty as a lawyer. He committed a serious transgression when he
failed to exert his utmost learning and ability and to give entire
devotion to his client’s cause. His client had relied on him to file the
formal offer of exhibits among other things. But he failed him.
Resulting as it did in the dismissal of the case, his failure
constitutes inexcusable default It therefore behooves the Court to take
action on the respondent’s mortal infraction, which caused undeserved
and needless prejudice to his client’s interest, adversely affected the
confidence of the community in the legal profession and eroded the
public’s trust in the judicial system. As an attorney, the respondent is
sworn to do his level best and to observe full fidelity to the courts
and his clients.^[8] This means
that in relation to his duty to his clients he should put his maximum
skills and full commitment to bear in representation of their causes.

We can only echo our pronouncements in Basas v. Icawat^[9], to wit:

Respondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of
his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 provides:

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

As we reiterated in Aromin, et at. v. Boncavil, A.C. No. 5135, September 22, 1999 :

Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and
diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity,
care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the
interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the
rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is
entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it
is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the
correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the
bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence
and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves
the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession.^[10]

This Court has emphatically ruled that the trust and’ confidence
necessarily reposed by clients requires in the attorney a high standard
and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts
and the public.^[11] Every
case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
fee or free.^[12] Certainly, a
member of the Bar who is worth his title cannot afford to practice the
profession in a lackadaisical fashion. A lawyer’s lethargy from the
perspective of the Canons is both unprofessional and unethical.

The IBP recommended the suspension of the respondent from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months. We find the recommended
penalty commensurate with the offense committed.

In Aromin v. Boncavil, ^[13]this
Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months for his failure to file a
written offer of evidence despite the trial court’s directive.

The failure to file formal offer of evidence is in part materia with failure to file brief, which as this Court held in Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon^[14]constitutes inexcusable negligence. In the Saquilabon case,
the respondent lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months. The Court likewise imposed the same penalty
upon the respondents in the cases of In Re: Atty. David Briones,^[15] Spouses Galen v. Panguinigan,^[16] Spouses Rebanal v. Rabanal^[17] for their failure to file the briefs of their respective clients.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Deogracias
Villar is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
effective upon finality hereof, with the WARNING that the repetition of a
similar violation will be dealt with even more severely.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records
of respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines , and the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.”

In the resolution dated 21 January 2004 in this administrative
case, the copy of the decision is deemed served on respondent by
substitute service pursuant to Section 5, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure as arfended.

__27__May 2004.

 ^[2] Vide: Orders dated Feb. 26, 2003 , March 30, 2001 , and May 7, 2001 , Rollo, pp. 26, 28,  29-30, respectively.

 ^[3] Rollo, pp. 29-30.

 ^[4] Id.,at pp. 1-7.

 ^[5] Id., at p, 38

 ^[6] Resolution dated Aug. 7, 2002, Rollo, p. 47.

 ^[8] Id., at pp. 5-7.

 ^[7] Vide: Orders dated Feb. 26, 2001 , March 30, 2001 , and May 7, 2001 , supra

 ^[8]Attorney’s Oath; Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Rules of Court.

 ^[9] Basas v. leawat, A.C, No. 4282, August 24, 2000 , 338 SCRA 648.

 ^[10] Id., at 651.

 ^[11] Sipin-Naborvs. Eaterina, 412 Phil. 419 (2001).

 ^[12] In Re: Atty. David Briones, 415 Phil. 203 (2001).

 ^[13] Aromin V. Boncavil, AC. No. 5135; September 22,1999 , 315 SCRA1.

 ^[14]337 Phil. 555(1997).

 ^[15] 415 Phil, 203(2001).

 ^[16] A.C. 5558, March 7, 2002.

 ^[17] AC. No. 1372, June 27, 2002.