Facts:

On May 19, 1964, Jose Alcala and his wife Avelina Imperial initiated a petition for disbarment against Honesto de Vera, an attorney based in Locsin, Albay. The basis for this disbarment was his conduct in a civil case (Civil Case No. 2478) concerning an annulment of sale of two parcels of land, where de Vera was retained as legal counsel. The complainants accused de Vera of gross negligence and malpractice allegedly for two reasons: first, he purportedly failed to notify them of a judgment rendered in their case on April 17, 1963, resulting in their deprivation of the right to appeal; second, they charged him with indifference and lack of interest that led to their damages. De Vera responded by asserting that he did inform his clients of the decision and had fully defended their interests. An investigation by the Solicitor General established that the trial court had rescinded the sale of the two lots due to the vendee's failure to take physical possession of the property. T

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On May 19, 1964, petitioners Jose Alcala (deceased) and Avelina Imperial filed a petition for disbarment against respondent Honesto de Vera, a practicing attorney in Locsin, Albay.
• The petition arose from issues in civil case 2478 of the Court of First Instance of Albay titled “Ray Semenchuk vs. Jose Alcala,” in which respondent served as counsel for the petitioners.

Civil Case 2478 and Its Proceedings

• The case involved an action for annulment of a sale of two parcels of land (Lot Nos. 1880 and 1883), with the vendee, Ray Semenchuk, alleging that Lot 1880 “could not be located or did not exist.”
• Respondent, acting as counsel for the petitioners, filed an answer denying the allegations and counterclaimed for the balance of the purchase price, notarial expenses, taxes, registration fees, and damages.
• On April 17, 1963, the trial court rendered judgment rescinding the contract of sale on the ground that Lot 1880 was in the possession of third parties, although the decision provided that possession of Lot 1883 be restored and a sum be returned to the plaintiff.

Notice of the Decision and Subsequent Developments

• A copy of the decision was received by respondent on April 19, 1963; however, respondent failed to inform his clients of the ruling.
• On July 17, 1963, petitioners were taken by surprise when a sheriff served a writ of execution at their home due to the adverse judgment in case 2478.
• Upon inquiry, the Deputy Clerk of Court confirmed that no appeal had been taken and that the judgment was final and executory.

Additional Litigation by the Petitioners

• On September 12, 1963, spouses Alcala pursued a civil damages case (Civil Case 2723) against respondent for his failure to notify them, claiming that this omission deprived them of the right to appeal, causing shock and emotional disturbance.
• The trial court in case 2723 found that respondent indeed did not notify his clients, but dismissed the damages claim due to a lack of evidence of actual damage, a ruling later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Specific Charges Against the Attorney

• The first charge pertained to gross negligence and malpractice by failing to notify his clients of the decision in case 2478.
• A second charge alleged indifference, disloyalty, and lack of interest, based on his alleged failure to present documents (sketch, technical description, surveyor’s plan, and receipt) that could have supported the existence of Lot 1880.
• The Solicitor General’s investigation established that the documents in question were redundant since a commissioner had already verified the existence of Lot 1880, making admission of these documents unnecessary.

Issue:

Whether failure by respondent to notify his clients of the decision rendered in Civil Case 2478 constitutes gross negligence, malpractice, and sufficient cause for disbarment.

• Did the omission to inform petitioners of the judgment, resulting in their loss of the right to appeal, amount to a breach of the lawyer’s duty?
• Could the failure be characterized as a mere oversight or a deliberate act demonstrating indifference, disloyalty, and lack of interest?

Whether petitioners sustained any actual material or pecuniary damage due to respondent’s failure to notify them of the decision.

• Given that both the trial court in the damages case and the Court of Appeals held that no damage was sustained despite the nonnotification, does this negate the harm attributable to respondent’s negligence?

The appropriate disciplinary measure for the misconduct alleged against respondent.

• Should gross negligence in failing to inform his clients be punished by the extreme penalty of disbarment?
• Alternatively, does the absence of demonstrable material damage warrant a lesser sanction, such as a severe reprimand or censure?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)