Case Digest (A.C. No. 10709)
Facts:
The case involves a verified complaint filed by Calixtro P. Calisay (complainant) against Atty. Toradio R. Esplana and Atty. Mary Grace A. Checa-Hinojosa (respondents) under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The complaint was lodged on December 9, 2014. The events leading to the complaint began when complainant engaged the services of respondent Esplana on April 23, 2012, to represent him in a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with damages filed against him by Teresa Yap in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. Respondent Esplana filed an Answer with Entry of Appearance on May 7, 2012, which was eight days late, leading the MTC to issue an order on May 25, 2012, expunging the Answer from the records. Subsequently, on May 30, 2012, the MTC ruled in favor of Yap, ordering Calisay to vacate the premises. Unaware of this decision, Esplana filed a motion for reconsideration. Following this, Calisay engaged respondent Checa-Hinojosa, who entered her appearance on July...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 10709)
Facts:
Engagement of Atty. Esplana: Calixtro P. Calisay (complainant) engaged Atty. Toradio R. Esplana (respondent Esplana) on April 23, 2012, to represent him in an unlawful detainer case filed by Teresa Yap before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
Late Filing of Answer: Atty. Esplana filed an Answer with Entry of Appearance on May 7, 2012, eight days beyond the reglementary period. Consequently, the MTC expunged the Answer from the records on May 25, 2012.
MTC Decision: On May 30, 2012, the MTC ruled in favor of Teresa Yap, ordering the complainant to vacate the premises. Atty. Esplana, unaware of the decision, moved for reconsideration of the expungement order.
Appeal and Engagement of Atty. Checa-Hinojosa: On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the complainant engaged Atty. Mary Grace A. Checa-Hinojosa (respondent Checa-Hinojosa), who entered her appearance on July 31, 2012. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision on November 23, 2012.
Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings: The complainant, through Atty. Checa-Hinojosa, elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review. The CA denied the petition on June 5, 2013, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on August 29, 2013. Atty. Checa-Hinojosa received the CA resolution on September 12, 2013, but informed the complainant only on November 12, 2013, after the period to appeal to the Supreme Court had lapsed.
Administrative Complaint: The complainant filed a verified complaint on December 9, 2014, alleging negligence and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by both respondents.
IBP Proceedings: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found both respondents guilty of violating the CPR. Atty. Esplana was guilty of negligence under Rule 18.03, and Atty. Checa-Hinojosa violated Rule 18.04 for failing to inform her client of the CA resolution. The IBP initially recommended a six-month suspension but later modified it to a reprimand.
Issue:
- Whether Atty. Esplana was negligent in failing to file the Answer within the reglementary period.
- Whether Atty. Checa-Hinojosa violated her duty to inform the complainant of the CA resolution, resulting in the loss of the right to appeal.
- Whether the recommended penalties by the IBP are appropriate.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)