Poon v. Bassig-Chua
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Roberto Poon was the defendant in an unlawful detainer case filed by Metro Central Mercantile Corporation (MCMC), represented by respondent Atty. Janette Bassig-Chua. Complainant charged respondent with grave professional misconduct for allegedly failing to furnish his counsel, Atty. Antonio R. Tupaz, with various pleadings and motions filed in the MTC case. Procedural History: The MTC initially treated respondent's Motion to Render Judgment as a motion to declare complainant in default. Despite the MTC order directing proof of service to both complainant and his counsel, respondent only furnished complainant. The MTC granted the motion and subsequently rendered judgment in favor of MCMC. Copies of the decision and order were served only to complainant. Complainant's Petition for Certiorari and Injunction with the RTC was denied. Respondent then filed a motion for execution, which was granted, leading to complainant's ouster from the premises. Complainant's motion to recall the order of execution was denied, with respondent again allegedly failing to furnish Atty. Tupaz with a copy of her opposition. The Petition: Complainant asserted that respondent violated his right to due process by repeatedly and deliberately failing to furnish his counsel with specific pleadings, namely: Motion to Render Judgment, Compliance, Motion for Execution, and Opposition to the Very Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Recall Order of Execution. Respondent argued that she did not commit misconduct, claiming she had no basis to know Atty. Tupaz was complainant's counsel at the time of filing certain motions and that Atty. Tupaz failed to properly indicate hearing dates.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Janette Bassig-Chua should be held administratively liable for failure to furnish Atty. Antonio R. Tupaz with the pleadings she filed. Whether the penalty of three months suspension from the practice of law is commensurate to the infraction.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Janette Bassig-Chua guilty of simple misconduct and reprimanded her, with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts. The Court found the penalty of three months suspension to be too harsh and not commensurate to the infraction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of administrative liability for failure to furnish pleadings: The Court held that respondent Atty. Janette Bassig-Chua is guilty of simple misconduct for failing to furnish copies of pleadings to the counsel of record of the adverse party. Section 2, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that if a party is represented by counsel, service must be made upon his counsel. The Court noted that Atty. Tupaz's filing of a Motion to Complete the Complaint was sufficient notice that he was the counsel of record, even without a formal entry of appearance. Respondent's claim that she did not know Atty. Tupaz was counsel when she filed the Motion to Render Judgment was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the MTC's order which clearly indicated service to both complainant and his counsel. Furthermore, respondent had already received the petition for certiorari filed by Atty. Tupaz with the RTC prior to filing her Motion for Execution, making it clear that Atty. Tupaz was representing the complainant. The Court emphasized that the rule on service is not a mere technicality but is founded on considerations of fair play, ensuring that a party's interests are protected by competent hands. On the commensurability of the penalty: The Court found the recommended penalty of three months suspension from the practice of law to be too harsh and not commensurate to the infraction. The Court reasoned that the complainant was declared in default due to his failure to file an answer within the reglementary period, and his motion to complete the complaint was correctly treated as a scrap of paper for non-compliance. Moreover, the complainant was not denied due process as he was able to elevate the case to the RTC, which afforded him an opportunity to be heard.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer is administratively liable for failing to furnish copies of pleadings to the counsel of record of the adverse party, as such failure violates the right to due process and the rules on service of pleadings.