Sy v. Esponilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Elpidio Sy filed a complaint against Edgar Esponilla (Legal Researcher and Officer-In-Charge) and Atty. Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia (Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff) for Gross Misconduct, Negligence, and Dishonesty. The complaint stemmed from the withdrawal of rental deposits amounting to ₱260,000.00 from Civil Case No. 90-55003, which were deposited with Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. These deposits covered monthly rentals for the period from June 30, 1989, to August 5, 1994. The withdrawal was facilitated by an Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Rental Deposits filed by Atty. Walfredo Bayhon, counsel for the plaintiffs in the civil case. The late Judge Hermogenes R. Liwag, then Pairing Judge of Branch 54, issued an Order dated November 11, 1994, allowing the withdrawal, citing that the deposits were superfluous and duplicitous because a supersedeas bond had allegedly been posted in an appealed ejectment case with Branch 32. Complainant alleged that this claim was false, as the periods covered by the deposits in Branch 54 and the supersedeas bond in Branch 32 were different. Complainant also stated he was not furnished a copy of the Ex-Parte Motion, which was never set for hearing. The Ex-Parte Motion and its attachments were not found in the records of Branch 54. The withdrawal was evidenced by a disbursement voucher dated November 14, 1994, certified by respondent Atty. Dela Cruz-Buendia and approved by the Acting Court Cashier. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint for investigation. The Executive Judge found no fault with respondent Esponilla, as he was appointed Officer-In-Charge only in March 1995, after the questioned order was issued. The Executive Judge also found the explanations of respondent Dela Cruz-Buendia meritorious, stating her duty was ministerial. The Executive Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint against both respondents and that Atty. Bayhon be asked to explain the circumstances behind filing the Ex-Parte Motion. The OCA adopted these findings and recommendations. This Court, in a Decision dated October 30, 2006, dismissed the case against Esponilla for lack of merit. However, Dela Cruz-Buendia was found guilty of simple negligence and fined ₱1,000.00, with a warning. Atty. Bayhon was ordered to explain the circumstances of filing the Ex-Parte Motion. The Court noted that the order was prepared in Branch 55 and directed an investigation into the management of records in Branches 54 and 55. Dela Cruz-Buendia's motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Bayhon's explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, reiterating his withdrawal as counsel and turnover of records. Further investigation revealed the order was drafted by a stenographer from Branch 55, and the motion was filed with Branch 55, not Branch 54. Atty. Bayhon repeatedly failed to comply with court directives, leading to fines and threats of arrest. The Court found Atty. Bayhon's explanations evasive and his conduct contumacious, violating his Lawyer's Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Petition: This decision addresses the administrative complaint against Edgar Esponilla and Atty. Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia, and further deliberates on the conduct of Atty. Walfredo Bayhon.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Edgar Esponilla and Atty. Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia were guilty of Gross Misconduct, Negligence, and Dishonesty in connection with the withdrawal of rental deposits. Whether Atty. Walfredo Bayhon committed violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to the filing of the Ex-Parte Motion and his subsequent non-compliance with court directives.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Edgar Esponilla was dismissed for lack of merit. Atty. Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia was found guilty of simple negligence and fined ₱1,000.00, with a warning. Atty. Walfredo C. Bayhon was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, in addition to the fine of ₱500.00 previously imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of Edgar Esponilla and Atty. Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia: The Court found no merit in the complaint against Edgar Esponilla. He was appointed Officer-In-Charge of Branch 54 only in March 1995, which was after the questioned Order dated November 11, 1994, was issued and after the check for the withdrawal of deposits was released on November 14, 1994. Therefore, he could not have participated in the processing of the withdrawal or the preparation and release of the check. There was also no proof that he connived with any party to perpetrate fraud. Consequently, the complaint against him was dismissed. The Court found Atty. Dela Cruz-Buendia guilty of simple negligence. While her duties as Clerk of Court were generally ministerial, the Court emphasized that ordinary prudence would have called for her to at least verify the authenticity and origin of the Order of Judge Liwag, especially since it involved the withdrawal of substantial deposits. The Court noted that the Order did not bear the seal of the Court nor the standard certification by the branch clerk of court. Her failure to exercise vigilance, despite the ministerial nature of her duty, constituted simple negligence. She was fined ₱1,000.00 with a warning against repetition. On the liability of Atty. Walfredo Bayhon: The Court found Atty. Bayhon guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His filing of the Ex-Parte Motion with Branch 55, where the case was not docketed, and the subsequent inability to produce the motion or adequately explain the circumstances surrounding its issuance and the basis for the withdrawal order, demonstrated a pattern of evasion and non-compliance. His explanations were deemed evasive and unsatisfactory, failing to shed light on the irregularities. His repeated failure to comply with court directives, including paying fines and submitting required explanations, despite threats of arrest, showed contumacious conduct and disrespect for the Court's lawful orders. The Court found his claim that the deposits were superfluous and duplicitous due to a supersedeas bond to be a legal incredulity, especially since he could not produce the motion to substantiate this claim. His conduct protracted the administrative investigation, and he was suspended from the practice of law for six months, in addition to the previously imposed fine.
Main Doctrine
A clerk of court's duty in releasing deposits based on a court order is ministerial, but ordinary prudence requires verification of the authenticity and origin of the order, especially when it involves significant sums. Failure to do so, despite the ministerial nature of the duty, can constitute simple negligence. Furthermore, a lawyer's contumacious conduct in failing to comply with court directives, including paying fines and providing explanations, warrants disciplinary action.