Dela Cruz v. Fabros, Jr. and Sunega
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner-complainant Leoncio dela Cruz alleges that he engaged the services of Atty. Ricardo A. Fabros, Jr. for various legal matters, including preparing answers to complaints filed by South Fortune Motors Corporation. Subsequently, Atty. Fabros, Jr., acting as counsel for South Fortune Motors Corporation, filed two separate complaints for sum of money against dela Cruz. Dela Cruz claims he approached Atty. Fabros, Jr. for assistance with these cases, paid him for his services, and was subsequently deceived. Procedural History: Dela Cruz filed a complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Fabros, Jr. and Atty. Guillermo E. Sunega, alleging connivance in deceiving and cheating him. Atty. Fabros, Jr. denied the allegations, stating that dela Cruz had his own retainer lawyer, Atty. Sunega, and that dela Cruz failed to settle his accounts or return vehicles purchased on credit, leading to the filing of the complaints and subsequent default and execution. Atty. Sunega also denied the accusations, explaining his limited engagement in the cases and his attempts to communicate with dela Cruz, which were unsuccessful, leading to his withdrawal of appearance. The Court required dela Cruz to file a reply to the respondents' comments, which he failed to do. The Petition: This case originates from a disbarment complaint filed by Leoncio dela Cruz against Atty. Ricardo A. Fabros, Jr. and Atty. Guillermo E. Sunega. Dela Cruz accused the respondents of conspiring to deceive and cheat him in relation to two civil cases filed against him by South Fortune Motors Corporation. The complaint details alleged misconduct, including Atty. Fabros, Jr. filing motions as counsel for both parties and Atty. Sunega withdrawing his appearance without proper notification. The respondents, in their respective comments, denied the allegations and presented their defenses. The Court, noting the petitioner-complainant's failure to file a reply to the respondents' comments, inferred that the respondents' allegations were true and dismissed the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents Atty. Ricardo A. Fabros, Jr. and Atty. Guillermo E. Sunega committed acts constituting malpractice or gross misconduct warranting disbarment. Whether the petitioner-complainant's failure to file a reply to the respondents' comments warrants the dismissal of the complaint.
Ruling
The petition-complaint is DISMISSED, and petitioner-complainant Leoncio dela Cruz is ADMONISHED for filing a baseless complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disbarment and misconduct: The Court noted the conflicting allegations between the petitioner-complainant and the respondents. Atty. Fabros, Jr. denied being the lawyer of Dela Cruz for his legal problems, stating that Dela Cruz had his own retainer lawyer, Atty. Sunega, who handled his cases. Atty. Fabros, Jr. claimed Dela Cruz approached him with false promises to settle accounts related to two mini-buses purchased on credit from his client, South Fortune Motors Corporation. He asserted that Dela Cruz failed to pay and hid the buses, leading to the filing of the complaints and subsequent default order. Atty. Sunega, in his defense, stated that he had a lawyer-client relationship with Dela Cruz on a case-to-case basis since 1979, handling reckless imprudence cases and estafa cases involving bouncing checks. He claimed Dela Cruz engaged his services for the two cases filed by South Fortune Motors Corporation on August 9, 1980, and that he filed a motion for extension. However, Dela Cruz failed to show up to confer on the cases, prompting Atty. Sunega to withdraw his appearance after notifying Dela Cruz. Atty. Sunega denied conniving with Atty. Fabros, Jr. On the issue of failure to file a reply: The Court observed that petitioner-complainant Leoncio dela Cruz was required to file a reply to the comments of the respondents within ten (10) days from notice. This order was sent by registered mail and received on April 5, 1983. As of May 21, 1985, no such reply had been filed by the petitioner-complainant. The Court held that such failure on the part of the petitioner-complainant gives rise to the inference that the allegations in the comments of the respondents are true and that the petition-complaint is false and baseless. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient basis to proceed with the disbarment charges against the respondents.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a complainant to file a reply to the comments of respondents, despite notice, gives rise to the inference that the allegations in the comments are true and the complaint is false and baseless, warranting its dismissal and admonition of the complainant.