CRAIG L. FORD, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ESCOLASTICO DAITOL, RESPONDENT.

Ford versus Daitol

The Case

This is an administrative case for disciplinary action against a member of the Bar. Craig L. Ford, a client, complains against his former counsel, Attorney Escolastico Daitol, for failing to file the appellee's brief in the client's appealed civil case. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by counsel to a client and to the courts, and because it shows how the Supreme Court calibrates the penalty for neglect, adjusting the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upward when the circumstances demand it.

Procedural History

The complainant first lodged a complaint with the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which forwarded the case to the IBP office in Manila. He also filed a letter-complaint with the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Commission on Bar Discipline found the respondent remiss in his duties and recommended a one-month suspension. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved that recommendation. The IBP resolution and the respondent's motion for reconsideration were then forwarded to the Supreme Court for final action pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the recommended penalty being suspension from the practice of law. The Supreme Court resolved the case in that original administrative proceeding.

Facts

Some time in 1987, Craig L. Ford engaged the legal services of Attorney Daitol in connection with a civil case for damages filed against the Philippine Commercial International Bank before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Ford. The bank appealed to the Court of Appeals. After the bank filed its appellant's brief, the Court of Appeals directed Ford to file his appellee's brief.

Despite several inquiries by Ford about the status of the brief and reminders from him to file it, the respondent never filed the appellee's brief. On 29 April 1991, Ford learned from the respondent that the Court of Appeals had issued a resolution dated 4 March 1991 stating that the case had been submitted for decision without the appellee's brief. Aggrieved and apprehensive that the omission might prejudice his case, Ford filed a complaint dated 6 May 1991 before the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The respondent did not file an answer to that complaint.

In his answer to the letter-complaint filed with the Supreme Court, the respondent admitted that he was counsel for Ford in the civil case and that he had entered his appearance as such in the Court of Appeals. He claimed, however, that before he could finish the draft of the appellee's brief, Ford terminated his services due to various difficulties and misunderstanding between them. Ford denied this, stating that he had already advanced 600 pesos as attorney's fees and that the respondent had assured him he was preparing the brief. During the hearings before the Commission on Bar Discipline, the respondent did not appear and offered no explanation for his failure to file the brief. He twice moved to postpone the hearings, citing among others lack of money for his trip to Manila, and he moved to transfer the venue to Cebu City, which the Commission denied. The Commission directed him to submit his affidavit and evidence by mail, and later gave him a final opportunity to present evidence. He submitted nothing, and the Commission declared him to have waived his right to present evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent was denied due process when the Commission on Bar Discipline received the case ex parte and declared him to have waived his right to present evidence.
• Whether or not the respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel for the complainant in failing to file the appellee's brief.
• Whether or not the recommended penalty of suspension for one month is commensurate with the respondent's breach of duty.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 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 is the core rule the respondent violated by failing to file the appellee's brief entrusted to him.

Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the same Code is invoked by the Court as the standard of conduct requiring every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The respondent fell short of this duty when he allowed the appeal to be submitted for decision without a brief for his client.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent had no cause to complain. The Commission gave him ample opportunity to submit his affidavit and supporting documents. Its order denying the motion to change venue warned that any absence would be deemed a waiver of the right to present evidence, and its later order gave him a final opportunity to present evidence by mail. Since he still failed to submit his evidence despite those orders, the Commission properly declared that he had waived his right to present evidence and regarded the case as submitted for resolution.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent had been remiss in his duties as counsel. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellee's brief, the respondent fell far short of his duties under Rule 12.04, Canon 12 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court also faulted him for not securing a written discharge from the complainant before considering himself relieved of the duty to file the brief. Citing its earlier ruling in the Marcos case, the Court held:

An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.

On the third issue, the Court stressed that the determination of whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Having in mind the circumstances of the case and existing case law, the Court found the recommended one-month suspension not commensurate with the breach of duty and adjusted it upward. In previous cases, it had imposed for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court suspension for three months, six months, and even disbarment in aggravated cases.

Doctrine

A lawyer engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the client's interest with utmost diligence. Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The failure to file a brief for a client constitutes inexcusable negligence. A lawyer who considers himself discharged must secure a written discharge from the client before treating himself as relieved of the duty to file the required pleading. The penalty for such neglect lies in the sound judicial discretion of the Court, which may adjust the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upward to fit the circumstances.

Disposition

The Court suspended Attorney Escolastico Daitol from the practice of law for three months, warned him that repetition of the same or similar offense would be more severely dealt with, and directed him to return to the complainant the 600 pesos he had received as attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a failure to file a brief for one's client constitutes inexcusable negligence, rendering the lawyer liable under Rule 18.03, Canon 18. Examiners use this case to test the duty of diligence owed by counsel and the Court's power to raise the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.