3 - 119463 2003 Endaya - v. - Oca20210424 12 bsj1qp
3 - 119463 2003 Endaya - v. - Oca20210424 12 bsj1qp
3 - 119463 2003 Endaya - v. - Oca20210424 12 bsj1qp
September 3, 2003
FACTS:
The complainant sought the services of the Public Attorney’s Office in Batangas
City for his unlawful detainer civil case filed against him and his wife. The
respondent was assigned to handle the case. When the court, ordered the parties to
submit their affidavits and position papers within ten days from receipt of the
order, 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 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.
Plaintiffs appealed the Decision and the RTC directed the parties to file their respective
memoranda. Once again, respondent failed the complainant 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 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 the property in dispute and as such are parties-in-interest. It
also found that the verbal lease agreement was on a month-to-month basis and
perforce terminable by the plaintiffs at the end of any given month upon proper
notice to the defendants. It also made a finding that defendants incurred rentals in
arrears.
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. Respondent denies that he committed professional
misconduct in violation of his oath, stressing that he was 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 a non-lawyer prepared the
answer. Upon discovering that the answer was in fact the work of a lawyer,
forthwith he asked the court to relieve him as complainants 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 RT. Finally,
respondent asserts that he fully explained his stand as regards Civil Case No. 34-
MCTC-T to the complainant
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
HELD:
Yes, the court ruled that the facts and circumstances in this case indubitably
show respondents failure to live up to his duties as 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 unlawful
detainer case, respondent was remiss in his performance of his duty as a counsel.
For his failure to inform the court, respondent violated 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
17provides that (A) lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him. When complainant received the RTC
decision, he talked to respondent about it.
[46] 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 complainant and effectively
betrayed the trust placed in him by the latter.
https://pdfcoffee.com/case-digestdocx-4-pdf-free.html