Francisco v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Pablo B. Francisco filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores for alleged dishonesty and negligence. The underlying dispute involved a forcible entry case where Atty. Francisco was the plaintiff and Atty. Flores represented the defendants, the Finezas. The Municipal Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the Finezas, but the Regional Trial Court reversed this decision upon appeal, ordering the Finezas to vacate the property and pay rentals. Atty. Flores filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, which was denied by the Regional Trial Court. Procedural History: Following the denial of Atty. Flores' motion for reconsideration, Atty. Francisco filed an ex-parte motion to remand the records for execution of judgment. The Regional Trial Court issued a certification that its order was final and executory. Subsequently, Atty. Francisco filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was granted. In response, the Finezas, not Atty. Flores, filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, alleging they did not receive notice of the order denying their motion for reconsideration until June 29, 2009. Atty. Francisco moved to dismiss this petition, arguing it was filed out of time and improperly filed. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the Petition for Relief. The Finezas were eventually evicted and their properties sold on execution. The Petition: Atty. Francisco initiated this administrative case, alleging Atty. Flores violated Canons 10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint specifically points to Atty. Flores' alleged negligence in failing to act on the case during the period when his clients could have filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, Atty. Francisco contends that Atty. Flores made untruthful statements in the Petition for Relief from Judgment, particularly regarding the date his clients learned of the adverse order, which was filed out of time. The petition before this Court seeks to hold Atty. Flores accountable for these alleged violations and to impose the corresponding penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores violated Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court accepted and approved the findings of fact of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores was found guilty of violating Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice) and Canon 10, Rule 10.03 (A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice): The Court found Atty. Flores not entirely truthful, citing conflicting statements regarding when he or his office learned of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and inconsistencies in his vacation dates. This demonstrated a violation of the duty to be truthful and not mislead the court. The Court also found that Atty. Flores assisted the Finezas in filing a procedurally infirm Petition for Relief from Judgment, which was later withdrawn, constituting a misuse of procedural rules. On the violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 (A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable): The Court held that Atty. Flores' explanation of being on vacation was insufficient. His office received the order on April 3, 2009, and even if the Finezas learned of the order on June 29, 2009, it took Atty. Flores over 20 days from receiving the motion for execution (June 3, 2009) to inform his clients, indicating a failure to immediately update them and act on the matter, which resulted in the expiration of the period for filing a Petition for Relief from Judgment. This failure to act promptly and consult with his clients on available remedies constituted negligence.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who makes untruthful statements in pleadings, fails to act upon a client's case resulting in the prescription of available remedies, or neglects a legal matter entrusted to him, violates Canons 10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.