The Court’s Ruling
The original sanction recommended by Commissioner Magpayo against the respondents, principally for their failure to file an answer for the Estavillos in the civil case, was a three-month suspension from the practice of law. The recommendation already took into account the presence of mitigating circumstances, although Commissioner Magpayo failed to elaborate on what these mitigating circumstances were.
In asking for a penalty lighter than the three-month suspension imposed, the respondents contend that they did everything required by their clients’ defense, except for the answer to the complaint which was filed beyond the reglementary period. Nonetheless, they submit that if there had been any negligence at all, it was not gross as it was due to a difficult appreciation of the Rules. In any event, they submit that their clients really had a losing case and there was nothing they could do about it. They further argue that the recommended penalty is not in accord with jurisprudence.
Under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.” Pursuant to Rule 18.03 cited by the complainant, “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”
After a review of the facts, we find no reason to reduce the originally recommended penalty of suspension for three months against the respondents for their mishandling of the Estavillos’ civil case. Although they filed the answer, it could no longer serve its purpose as it was filed late (i.e., seven days beyond the required ten [10]-day period), as found by the court.[25] As a consequence, the answer was stricken off the record[26] to the detriment of the complainant and his son.
The respondents attempted to justify the late filing of the answer by claiming that, to their mind, the civil case was actually for possession, notwithstanding that its title is for forcible entry. They thus waited for an order from the court pursuant to Section 4 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure which provides that “If no ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith issue summons which shall state that the summary procedure under this Rule shall apply.” They did not receive a court order so they presumed that the regular rules apply, under which, the answer shall be filed within fifteen (15) days.
We do not find the respondents’ stance acceptable as it betrays a lack of the necessary competence and diligence required by the Code of Professional Responsibility in responding to the court’s summons for the Estavillos to make an appearance in the case and to file an answer to the complaint. The respondents, especially Atty. Guillermo who was supposed to be the lead counsel for the Estavillos, misappreciated the urgency and the importance of the court’s summons. They mistakenly assumed that the court would issue an order of dismissal. They waited and when no order issued from the court, they again incorrectly assumed that the regular rules apply without seeking a clarification from the court or ascertaining exactly when the answer should be filed. With this rationalization, they then shifted the blame for their failure to file the answer on time to the court. We cannot allow this kind of response in the handling of cases as the terms of the Rules of Court are sufficiently clear in their requirements to the average lawyer. The terms of the summons were also clear; as the court aptly stated:
In the summons issued, specific instruction was given to the defendants that within ten (10) days after service, they are required to enter their appearance and to answer the complaint within the period fixed by the Rules of Court. The period fixed by the Rules of Court is ten (10) days and not fifteen (15) days as averred by the defendants. The defendants, however, failed.[27]
Thus, the respondents had in fact been negligent, or worse, had failed to exercise the required competence and diligence in filing the Estavillo’s answer to the complaint.
Under the circumstances of the case, the respondents’ penalty cannot be further mitigated without committing an unfairness against the complainant and his son. We remind the respondents and the IBP Board of Governors of what we said in Fil-Garcia, Inc. v. Hernandez:[28]
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to “neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Thus, he is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client’s cause.
