Cheng v. Agravante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Alexander M. Agravante served as counsel for The Rogemson Co., Inc. (Rogemson) in a labor case filed by its former employee, Beaver Martin B. Barril. A decision was rendered by Labor Arbiter Newton R. Sancho on June 18, 1998, in favor of Barril. Respondent's law office received a copy of the decision on September 8, 1998. The reglementary period to file an appeal was until September 18, 1998. However, respondent filed the Memorandum of Appeal only on September 22, 1998, causing the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to dismiss Rogemson's appeal. Procedural History: Rogemson terminated respondent's services and, through new lawyers, demanded compensation for damages. Upon respondent's failure to respond, Edison G. Cheng, General Manager of Rogemson, filed an affidavit-complaint with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation. The Supreme Court, however, reviewed the case and increased the penalty. The Petition: This administrative case for disbarment was filed against Atty. Alexander M. Agravante for alleged negligence and misrepresentation in handling the labor case of his client, Rogemson.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Agravante was guilty of negligence in filing the Memorandum of Appeal beyond the reglementary period. Whether respondent Atty. Agravante committed misrepresentation by certifying a false date of receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Agravante guilty of negligence and misrepresentation, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year and imposed a fine of P10,000.00. He was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in filing the Memorandum of Appeal: The Court held that respondent's filing of the Memorandum of Appeal four (4) days after the deadline, which resulted in its dismissal by the NLRC, clearly demonstrated negligence. This failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The Court rejected respondent's contention that it was not his place to file an appeal without express instructions, noting that he could have easily withdrawn it if his client decided not to pursue it. The belated filing, far from mitigating liability, highlighted his ignorance of the law, as he ought to have known that a pleading filed beyond the reglementary period would be struck down for late filing. Thus, respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully and well to protect the rights and interests of his client. On the issue of misrepresentation: The Court found that respondent Atty. Agravante lied when he certified in his Memorandum of Appeal that he received the adverse decision of the Labor Arbiter on September 10, 1998. The registry return card clearly indicated that respondent received the same on September 8, 1998. This act of certifying a false date was an attempt to mislead the NLRC and make it appear that his Memorandum of Appeal was filed on time. Such conduct violates Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court and 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. Lawyers, as officers of the court, must be disciples of truth and uphold honesty at all times, especially before the courts. Respondent's actions clearly fell short of this fundamental duty.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to file an appeal within the reglementary period due to negligence, and misrepresents the date of receipt of the adverse decision to the court, is guilty of violating Canons 10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and a fine.