244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Endaya vs. Oca

*
A.C. No. 3967. September 3, 2003.

ARTEMIO ENDAYA, complainant, vs. ATTY. WILFREDO

OCA, respondent.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; From the lawyer’s oath

springs the lawyer’s duties and responsibilities that any
infringement thereof can cause his disbarment, suspension or other
disciplinary action; The oath requires a lawyer to conduct himself
“to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to his clients.”—The lawyer’s oath
embodies the fundamental principles that guide every member of
the legal fraternity. From it springs the lawyer’s duties and
responsibilities that any infringement thereof can cause his
disbarment, suspension or other disciplinary action. Found in the
oath is the duty of a lawyer to protect and safeguard the interest
of his client. Specifically, it requires a lawyer to conduct himself
“to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to his clients.” This duty is further
stressed in Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which mandates that “(A) lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.”
Same; Same; A lawyer who fails to exercise due diligence or
abandons his client’s cause make him unworthy of the trust
reposed on him by the latter.—Once a lawyer takes the cudgels for
a client’s case, he owes it to his client to see the case to the end.
This, we pointed out in Legarda v. Court of Appeals, thus: It
should be remembered that the moment a lawyer takes a client’s
cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution
until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise due
diligence or abandons his client’s cause make him unworthy of the
trust reposed on him by the latter.
Same; Same; Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.—Also,
we held in Santiago v. Fojas, “every case a lawyer accepts
deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts if for a fee or
for free.” In other words, whatever the lawyer’s reason is for
accepting a case, he is duty bound to do his utmost in prosecuting
or defending it.
Same; Same; Lawyers in the government are public servants
who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.—On top of all
these is respondent’s employment as a lawyer of the Public
Attorney’s Office which is tasked to provide free legal assistance
for indigents and low-income persons so as to

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

245

VOL. 410, SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 245

Endaya vs. Oca

promote the rule of law in the protection of the rights of the

citizenry and the efficient and speedy administration of justice.
Against this backdrop, respondent should have been more
judicious in the performance of his professional obligations. As we
held in Vitriola v. Dasig “lawyers in the government are public
servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.”
Furthermore, a lawyer from the government is not exempt from
observing the degree of diligence required in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 6 of the Code provides that
“the canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of official tasks.”

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Violation of Lawyer’s Oath and Professional Delinquency or
Infidelity.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

TINGA, J.:

The law is no brooding omnipresence in the sky, so spoke

Justice Holmes. He must have made the statement because
invariably the legal system is encountered in human form,
notably through the lawyers. For practical purposes, 1
the
lawyers not only represent the law; they are the law. With
their ubiquitous presence in the social milieu, lawyers have
to be responsible. The problems they create in lawyering
become public difficulties. To keep lawyers responsible
underlies the worth of the ethics of lawyering. Indeed, legal
ethics is simply the aesthetic term for professional
responsibility.
The case before us demonstrates once again that when a
lawyer violates his duties to his client, the courts, the legal
profession and the public, he engages in conduct which is
both unethical and unprofessional. 2
This case unfolded with a verified Complaint filed on
January 12, 1993 by complainant Artemio Endaya against
respondent Atty. Wifredo Oca for violation of the lawyer’s
oath and what complainant 3
termed as “professional
delinquency or infidelity.” The antecedents are:
 On November 7, 1991, a complaint for unlawful detainer
docketed as Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T was filed with the
Municipal

_______________

1 See Luban, David, Lawyers and Justice, Princeton University Press,

1988, p. xvii.
2 Rollo, pp. 1-6.
3 Id., at p. 1.

246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Endaya vs. Oca

Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo, Batangas by Apolonia

H. Hornilla, Pedro Hernandez, Santiago Hernandez and
Dominador Hernandez 4
against complainant and his spouse
Patrosenia Endaya.
On December 13, 1991, the complainant and his wife as
defendants in the case filed their answer which was
prepared by a certain Mr. Isaias Ramirez. A preliminary
conference was conducted on January 17, 1992, which
complainant and his wife attended without counsel. During
the conference, complainant categorically admitted that
plaintiffs were the declared owners for taxation purposes of
the land involved in the case. Continuation of the
preliminary conference was set on January 31, 1992.
Thereafter, complainant sought the services of the Public
Attorney’s Office in Batangas City and respondent was
assigned
5
to handle the case for the complainant and his
wife.
At the continuation of the preliminary conference,
respondent appeared as counsel for complainant and his
spouse. He moved for the amendment of the answer
previously filed by 6 complainant and his wife, but his
motion was denied. Thereafter, the court, presided by
Acting Trial Court Judge Teodoro M. Baral, ordered the
parties to submit their affidavits and position papers
within ten days from receipt of the order. The court also
decreed that thirty days after receipt of the last affidavit
and position paper, or upon expiration of the period 7 for
filing the same, judgment shall be rendered on the case.
Respondent failed to submit the required affidavits and
position paper, as may be gleaned from the Decision dated
March 19, 1992 of the MCTC where it was noted that “only
the plaintiffs
8
submitted their affidavits and position
papers.”
Nonetheless, the court dismissed the complaint for
unlawful detainer principally on the ground that the
plaintiffs are not the real parties-in-interest. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed on the ground that

the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue as they are not the real
party (sic)

_______________

4 Id., at p. 26.
5 Ibid.
6 Rollo, p. 27.
7 Id., at p. 7.
8 Id., at p. 10.

247

VOL. 410, SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 247

Endaya vs. Oca

in interest, in addition to the fact that there is no privity of

contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the
verbal lease agreement.
9
SO ORDERED.”

Plaintiffs appealed the Decision to the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) Batangas City, Branch 1, where the case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 3378. On April 10, 1992, the
RTC directed 10
the parties to file their respective
memoranda. Once again, respondent failed the
complainant
11
and his wife. As observed by the RTC in its
Decision dated September 7, 1992, respondent did not file
the memorandum for his clients, thereby prompting 12
the
court to consider the case as submitted for decision.
In its Decision, the RTC reversed the decision appealed
from as it held that plaintiffs are the co-owners of 13the
property in dispute and as such are parties-in-interest. It
also found that the verbal month-to-month basis and
perforce terminable by the plaintiffs at the end
14
of any given
month upon proper notice to the defendants. It also 15made
a finding that defendants incurred rentals in arrears. The
decretal portion of the Decision reads, thus:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, Municipal Circuit Trial

Court of Taysan-Lobo dated March 19, 1992, is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and new one entered, to wit:
Defendants ARTEMIO ENDAYA and PATROSENIA ENDAYA
and all persons claiming under them are hereby ordered to vacate
and dismantle their house on the land subject of the verbal lease
agreement at their own expense. The defendants are likewise
ordered to pay the monthly rental of the P25.00 from the month of
January 1991 to November 1991 and ONE THOUSAND
(P1,000.00) PESOS monthly from December 1991 until the
defendants finally vacate and surrender possession of the subject
property to the plaintiffs and to pay attorney’s fee in the amount
of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00)16 PESOS.
No pronouncement as to cost.”

_______________

9 Id., at p. 11.
10 Id., at p. 15.
 11 Id., at pp. 12-22.
12 Id., at p. 15.
13 Id., at p. 19.
14 Id., at p. 20.
15 Id., at p. 21.
16 Id., at p. 22.

248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Endaya vs. Oca

Complainant received a copy of the Decision on October 7,

1992. Two days later, or on October 9, 1992, complainant
confronted respondent with the adverse decision but the
latter denied receipt of a copy thereof. Upon inquiry with
the Branch Clerk of Court, however, complainant found out
that respondent
17
received his copy back on September 14,
1992.
Having lost the unlawful detainer case, on January 12,
1993 complainant filed the present administrative
complaint against the respondent for professional
delinquency consisting of his failure to file the required
pleadings in behalf of the complainant and his spouse.
Complainant contends that due to respondent’s inaction he
lost the opportunity
18
to present his cause and ultimately the
case itself. 19
In his Comment dated March 17, 1993, respondent
denies that he committed professional misconduct in
violation of his oath, stressing that he was
20
not the original
counsel of complainant and his spouse. He further avers
that when he agreed to represent complainant at the
continuation of the preliminary conference in the main
case, it was for the sole purpose of asking leave of court to
file an amended answer because he was made to believe by
the complainant that the answer was prepared by a non-
lawyer. Upon discovering that the answer was in fact the
work of a lawyer, forthwith he asked the court to relieve
him as complainant’s counsel, but he was denied. He adds
that he agreed to file the position paper for the
complainant upon the latter’s undertaking to provide him
with the documents which support the position that
plaintiffs are not the owners of the property in dispute. As
complainant had reneged on his promise, he claims that he
deemed it more prudent not to file any position paper as it
would be a repetition of the answer. He offers the same
reason for not filing the memorandum on appeal with the
RTC. Finally, respondent asserts that “he fully explained
his stand as 21regards Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T to the
complainant.”

_______________

17 Id., at p. 3.
18 Ibid.
 19 Rollo, pp. 26-28.
20 Id., at p. 26.
21 Id., at pp. 27-28.

249

VOL. 410, SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 249

Endaya vs. Oca

22
Pursuant to our Resolution 23
dated May 10, 1993,
complainant filed his Reply to respondent’s Comment
wherein, he merely reiterated his allegations in the
Complaint.
On July 28, 1993, this Court directed respondent to file
his rejoinder
24
within ten days from notice of our
Resolution. But he failed to do so despite the lapse of a
considerable period of time. This prompted the Court to
require respondent to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt and 25
to file his
rejoinder, both within ten26(10) days from notice.
In his Explanation dated February 28, 1997,
respondent admits having received a copy of the resolution
requiring him to file a rejoinder. However, he asserts that
he purposely did not file a rejoinder for “he believed in good
faith that a27 rejoinder to complainant’s reply is no longer
necessary.” He professes that in electing not to file a
rejoinder
28
he did not intend to cast disrespect upon the
Court.
On June 16, 1997, we referred this case to the Office of
the Bar Confidant 29
for evaluation, report and
recommendation. 30
In its Report dated February 6, 2001, the Office of the
Bar Confidant found respondent negligent in handling the
case of complainant and his wife and recommended that he
be suspended from the practice of law for one month. The
pertinent portions of the Report read, thus:

It is to be noted that after appearing at the preliminary

conference before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, respondent
was never heard from again. Respondent’s seeming indifference to
the cause of his client, specially when the case was on appeal,
caused the defeat of herein complainant. Respondent practically
abandoned complainant in the midst of a

_______________

22 Id., at p. 28.
23 Id., at p. 38.
24 No copy of the Resolution dated July 28, 1993 is found in the Rollo. However,
this Court’s order requiring respondent to file a rejoinder within ten days from
notice is indicated in the minutes of the meeting of the Second Division held on
July 28, 1993.
25 Rollo, p. 44.
26 Id., at p. 46.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
 29 Rollo, p. 48.
30 Id., at pp. 49-56.

250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Endaya vs. Oca

storm. This is even more made serious of the fact that respondent,
at that time, was assigned at the Public Attorney’s Office—a
government entity mandated to provide free and competent legal
assistance.
“A lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause not only requires but
also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for
the client what is justly due him or to present every defense
provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to succeed.” (Miraflor
vs. Hagad, 244 SCRA 106)
...
The facts, however, do not show that respondent employed
every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his
client. Had respondent tried his best, he could have found some
other defenses available to his client; but respondent was either
too lazy or too convinced that his client had a losing case.
For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by
the court, respondent practically closed the door to the possibility
of putting up a fair fight for his client. As the Court once held, “A
client is bound by the31
negligence of his lawyer.” (Diaz-Duarte vs.
Ong, 298 SCRA 388)

However, the Bar Confidant did not find complainant

entirely faultless. She observed, viz.:

Respondent’s allegation that complainant failed in his promise to

submit the documents to support his claim was not denied by
complainant; hence, it is deemed admitted. Complainant is not
without fault; for misrepresenting that he could prove his claim
through supporting documents, respondent was made to believe
that he had a strong leg to stand on. “A party cannot blame his
counsel for negligence when he himself was guilty
32
of neglect.”
(Macapagal vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 491)

On April 18, 2001, we referred the case to the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Several hearings were set by the IBP but complainant
did not appear even once. Respondent attended five
hearings, but he failed to present evidence in support of his
defense, as required by Investigating Commissioner Victor
C. Fernandez. This compelled the latter to make his report
on the basis of the pleadings and evidence forwarded by the
Office of the Bar Confidant.

_______________

31 Id., at pp. 53-54.

32 Id., at p. 54.
 251

VOL. 410, SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 251

Endaya vs. Oca

On October
33
11, 2002, Commissioner Fernandez issued his
Report wherein he concurred with the findings and
recommendation of34 the Office of the Bar Confidant.
In a Resolution dated April 26, 2003, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted the Report of Commissioner Fernandez.
The Court is convinced that respondent violated the
lawyer’s oath not only once but a number of times in regard
to the handling of his clients’ cause. The repeated
violations also involve defilement of several Canons in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Right off, the Court notes that respondent attributes his
failure to file the required pleadings for the complainant
and his wife invariably to his strong personal belief that it
was unnecessary or futile to file the pleadings. This was
true with respect to the affidavits and position paper at the
MCTC level, the appeal memorandum at the RTC level and
the rejoinder at this Court’s level. In the last instance, it
took respondent as long as three years, under compulsion
of a show cause order at that, only to manifest his
predisposition not to file a rejoinder after all. In other
words, at the root of respondent’s transgressions is his
seeming stubborn mindset against the acts required of him
by the courts. This intransigent attitude not only belies
lack of diligence and commitment but evinces absence of
respect for the authority of this Court and the other courts
involved.
The lawyer’s oath embodies the fundamental principles
that guide every member of the legal fraternity. From it
springs the lawyer’s duties and responsibilities that any
infringement thereof can cause
35
his disbarment, suspension
or other disciplinary action.
Found in the oath is the duty of a lawyer to protect and
safeguard the interest of his client. Specifically, it requires
a lawyer to conduct himself “to the best of his knowledge
and discretion36with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to his clients.” This duty is further stressed in Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates
that “(A) lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.”

_______________

33 Id., at pp. 74-76.

34 Id., at p. 73.
35 Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003, p. 7.
36 Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Rules of Court.

252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Endaya vs. Oca

In this case, evidence abound that respondent failed to

demonstrate the required diligence in handling the case of
complainant and 37
his spouse. As found by the Office of the
Bar Confidant, after appearing at the second preliminary
conference before the MCTC, respondent had not been
heard of again until he commented on the complaint in this
case. Without disputing this fact, respondent reasons out
that his appearance at the conference was for the sole
purpose of obtaining leave of court to file an amended
answer and that when he failed to obtain it because of
complainant’s
38
fault he asked the court that he be relieved
as counsel. The explanation has undertones of dishonesty
for complainant had engaged respondent for the entire case
and not for just one incident. The alternative conclusion is
that respondent did not know 39his procedure for under the
Rules on Summary Procedure the amended answer is a
prohibited pleading.
Even assuming respondent did in fact ask to be relieved,
this could not mean that less was expected from him. Once
a lawyer takes the cudgels for a client’s case, he owes it to
his client to see the case to the
40
end. This, we pointed out in
Legarda v. Court of Appeals, thus:

It should be remembered that the moment a lawyer takes a

client’s cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to
exercise due diligence or abandons his client’s cause
41
make him
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by the latter.

_______________

37 Rollo, p. 53.
38 Id., at pp. 26-27.
39 Rules on Summary Procedure

Section 2. Pleading—
A. Pleadings allowed—The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaint
and the answer (to the complaint, counter-claim or cross-claim). If the defendant
has a crossclaim or a compulsory counterclaim, the same must be asserted in the
answer, or be considered barred.
Section 4. Answer.—Upon being served with summons, the defendant must
answer the complaint within ten (10) days from service thereof. The answer to a
counterclaim or crossclaim must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof.

40 G.R. No. 94457, 10 June 1992, 209 SCRA 722.

41 Id., at pp. 730-731.

253

VOL. 410, SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 253

Endaya vs. Oca

42
Also, we held in Santiago v. Fojas, “every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts if for a fee or for free.” In other words, whatever the
lawyer’s reason is for accepting a case, he is duty bound to
do his utmost in prosecuting or defending it.
Moreover, a lawyer continues to be a counsel of record
until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated either by
the act of his client or his own act, with permission of the
court. Until such time, the lawyer
43
is expected to do his best
for the interest of his client.
Thus, when respondent was directed to file affidavits
and position paper by the MCTC, and appeal memorandum
by the RTC, he had no choice but to comply. However,
respondent did not disregard of the court orders. This
constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates that “(A) lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.”
Respondent’s failure to file the affidavits and position
paper at the MCTC did not actually prejudice his clients,
for the court nevertheless rendered a decision favorable to
them. However, the failure is per se a violation of Rule
18.03.
It was respondent’s failure to file appeal which made
complainant and his wife suffer as it resulted in their loss
of the case. As found by the Office of the Bar Confidant, to
which we fully subscribe, in not filing the appeal
memorandum respondent denied complainant and his
spouse the chance of putting up a fair fight in the dispute.
Canon 19 prescribes that “(A) lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the law.” He should
exert all efforts to avail of the remedies allowed under the
law. Respondent did not do so, thereby even putting to
naught the advantage which his clients apparently gained
by prevailing at the MCTC level. Verily, respondent did not
even bother to put up a fight for his clients. Clearly, his
conduct fell short of what Canon 19 requires and breached
the trust reposed in him by his clients.
We cannot sustain respondent’s excuse in not filing the
affidavits and position paper with the MCTC and the
appeal memoran-

_______________

42 A.C. No. 4103, 7 Sept. 1995, 248 SCRA 68, 75-76.

43 Orcino v. Gaspar, 344 Phil. 792, 800-801; 279 SCRA 379 (1997).

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Endaya vs. Oca

dum with the RTC. He claims that he did not file the
required pleadings because complainant failed to furnish
him with evidence that would substantiate complainant’s
allegations in the answer. He argues that absent the
supporting documents, the pleadings he could have filed
would just be a repetition of the answer. However,
respondent admits in his comment that complainant
furnished him with the affidavit of persons purporting to be
barangay officials attesting to an alleged admission by
Felomino Hernandez, the brother of the plaintiffs in the
unlawful detainer 44case, that he had already bought the
disputed property. This did not precipitate respondent
into action despite the evidentiary value of the affidavit,
which was executed by disinterested persons. Said affidavit
could have somehow bolstered the claim of complainant
and his wife which was upheld by the MCTC that plaintiffs
are not the real parties-in-interest. While respondent could
have thought this affidavit to be without probative value,
he should have left it to the sound judgment of the court to
determine whether the affidavit supports the assertion of
his clients. That could have happened had he filed the
required position paper and annexed the affidavit thereto.
Further, notwithstanding his belief that without the
supporting documents filing the required pleadings would
be a futile exercise, still respondent should have formally
and promptly manifested in court his intent not to file the45
pleadings to prevent delay in the disposition of the case.
Specifically, the RTC would not have waited as it did for
the lapse of three months from June 5, 1992, the date when
plaintiffs-appellants submitted their appeal memorandum,
before it rendered judgment. Had it known that respondent
would not file the appeal memorandum, the court could
have decided the case much earlier.
For his failure to inform the court, respondent violated
Canon 12, to wit:

Canon 12: A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Respondent likewise failed to demonstrate the candor he

owed his client. Canon 17 provides that “(A) lawyer owes
fidelity to the

_______________

44 Rollo, p. 27.
45 Bergonia v. Merrera, A.C. No. 5024, 20 Feb. 2003, 398 SCRA 1.

255

VOL. 410, SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 255

Endaya vs. Oca

cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and

confidence reposed in him.” When complainant received
46
the
RTC decision, he talked to respondent about it. However,
respondent denied knowledge of the decision despite his
receipt thereof as early as September 14, 1992. Obviously,
he tried to evade responsibility for his negligence. In doing
so, respondent was untruthful to the complainant and
effectively betrayed the trust placed in him by the latter.
 On top of all these is respondent’s employment as a
lawyer of the Public Attorney’s Office which is tasked to
provide free legal assistance for indigents and low-income
persons so as to promote the rule of law in the protection of
the rights of the citizenry and 47
the efficient and speedy
administration of justice. Against this backdrop,
respondent should have been more judicious in the
performance of his 48
professional obligations. As we held in
Vitriola v. Dasig “lawyers in the government are public
servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.”
Furthermore, a lawyer from the government is not exempt
from observing the degree of diligence required in the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Canon 6 of the Code provides
that “the canons shall apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of official tasks.”
At this juncture, it bears stressing that much is
demanded from those who engage in the practice of law
because they have a duty not only to their clients, but also
to the court, to the bar, and to the public. The lawyer’s
diligence and dedication to his work and profession not
only promote the interest of his client, it likewise help
attain the ends of justice by contributing to the proper and
speedy administration
49
of cases, maintain respect to the
legal profession.
The determination of the appropriate penalty to be
imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise50 of
sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case. In
cases of similar nature,51 the penalty imposed by this Court
consisted of reprimand, fine of five

_______________

46 Rollo, p. 3.
47 Art. 14.2, Integrated Reorganization Plan, Feb. 1972; Presidential
Decree No. 1725.
48 Supra, note 35 at p. 7.
49 Supra, note 42 at p 74.
50 Ford v. Atty. Daitol, 320 Phil. 53, 59; 250 SCRA 7 (1995).
51 Supra, note 42 at p. 76; Vda. De Oribiana v. Gerio, A.C. No. 1582, 88
SCRA 586, 592, 28 Feb. 1979.

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Endaya vs. Oca

52
hundred53 pesos with 54
warning, suspension of three
months,
55
six months, and even disbarment in aggravated
cases.
The facts and circumstances in this case indubitably
show respondent’s failure to live up to his duties as a
lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby
warranting his suspension from the practice of law. At
various stages of the unlawful detainer case, respondent
was remiss in the performance of his duty as counsel.
 To reiterate, respondent did not submit the affidavits
and position paper when required by the MCTC. With his
resolution not to file the pleadings already firmed up, he
did not bother to inform the MCTC of his resolution in
mockery of the authority of the court. His stubbornness
continued at the RTC, for despite an order to file an appeal
memorandum, respondent did not file any. Neither did he
manifest before the court that he would no longer file the
pleading, thus further delaying the proceedings. He had no
misgivings about his deviant behavior, for despite receipt of
a copy of the adverse decision by the RTC he opted not to
inform his clients accordingly. Worse, he denied knowledge
of the decision when confronted by the complainant about
it.
At this Court’s level, respondent’s stubborn and
uncaring demeanor surfaced again when he did not file a
rejoinder to complainant’s reply.
Respondent’s story projects in vivid detail his appalling
indifference to his clients’ cause, deplorable lack of respect
for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a
lawyer.
However, we are not unmindful of some facts which
extenuate respondent’s misconduct. First, when
complainant sought the assistance of respondent as a PAO
lawyer, he misrepresented that his answer was prepared
by someone who is not a lawyer. Second, when complainant
showed respondent a copy of their answer with the MCTC,
he assured him that he had strong evidence to support the
defense in the answer that plaintiffs were no longer the
owners

_______________

52 Basas v. Icawat, A.C. No. 4282, 24 Aug. 2000, 338 SCRA 648, 652.
53 Supra, note 50 at p. 59.
54 Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon, 337 Phil. 555, 559;
271 SCRA 109 (1997).
55 Mariveles v. Mallari, A.C. Case No. 3294, 219 SCRA 44, 461, 17 Feb.
1993.

257

VOL. 410, SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 257

Endaya vs. Oca

of the property in dispute. However, all that he could

provide respondent was the affidavit of the barangay
officials. Last but not least, it is of public knowledge that
the Public Attorney’s Office is burdened with a heavy
caseload.
All things considered, we conclude that suspension for
two (2) months from the practice of law is the proper and
just penalty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Wilfredo Oca is
ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
months from notice, with the warning that a similar
 misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of
this decision be attached to respondent’s personal record in
the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to
all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
and to all the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.

          Bellosillo (Actg. C.J., Chairman), Quisumbing,

Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice of law for two (2)

months, with warning against similar misconduct.

Note.—A lawyer shall serve his client with competence

and diligence. (Aromin vs. Boncavil, 315 SCRA 1 [1999])

——o0o——

258

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.