Estavillo v. Guillermo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rogelio F. Estavillo and his son Dexter engaged the services of respondents Attys. Gemmo G. Guillermo and Erme S. Labayog to represent them in a Forcible Entry and Damages case filed against them by Teresita A. Guerrero. The Estavillos were accused of building a fence on disputed property, substantially reducing Guerrero's passageway and destroying her house. The Estavillos allegedly wanted to remove Guerrero from the property they had acquired. Procedural History: The Estavillos' lawyers, the respondents, failed to file an answer to the complaint within the ten-day period mandated by the summons and the Rules of Court, filing it instead seven days late. Consequently, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) struck the answer from the records. The respondents also allegedly failed to inform the Estavillos of scheduled hearings and court orders, including an order for demolition and a subsequent order directing the Estavillos to pay damages. The Estavillos discovered the adverse judgment only after it was issued. The complaint for gross negligence was filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant and subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP's Board of Governors initially recommended a three-month suspension, but later, upon motion for reconsideration, reduced the penalty to a reprimand. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court following the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution No. XIX-2011-503, which modified its earlier resolution and reduced the penalty against the respondents from a three-month suspension to a reprimand. The Court is reviewing this resolution to determine the appropriate penalty for the respondents' violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically their failure to file the answer on time and alleged lack of diligence in handling the client's case. The Court will decide whether to uphold the reprimand or reinstate the original penalty of suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents committed gross negligence in handling the civil case for the complainant and his son. Whether the penalty of reprimand imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is appropriate, considering the respondents' negligence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XIX-2011-503 and REINSTATED Resolution No. XVIII-2009-07, imposing a three-month suspension from the practice of law against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross negligence: The Court found no reason to reduce the originally recommended penalty of suspension for three months. The respondents' failure to file an answer within the reglementary period of ten (10) days, resulting in the answer being stricken from the records, constituted negligence under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This failure was to the detriment of the complainant and his son, as it led to the striking of their defense and subsequent adverse judgment. On the issue of the appropriate penalty: The respondents' justification that they mistakenly believed the reglementary period was fifteen (15) days, based on a misappreciation of the Rules of Court and the summons, was unacceptable. The summons clearly required an appearance and answer within ten (10) days, and the respondents' assumption that regular rules applied without seeking clarification from the court demonstrated a lack of competence and diligence. The Court emphasized that the terms of the Rules of Court and the summons were sufficiently clear to the average lawyer. The respondents' actions or omissions were binding upon their clients, and they were expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure. Therefore, the penalty could not be further mitigated without being unfair to the complainant and his son.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's failure to file an answer within the reglementary period, leading to the striking of the pleading from the records and subsequent adverse judgment, constitutes negligence under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the penalty of suspension from the practice of law is warranted.