Title
Calisay vs. Esplana
Case
A.C. No. 10709
Decision Date
Aug 23, 2022
Atty. Esplana filed an Answer late, leading to case dismissal; Atty. Checa-Hinojosa failed to inform client of CA ruling, losing appeal rights. Both reprimanded for negligence under CPR.
Font Size:

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:

  1. Whether Atty. Esplana was negligent in failing to file the Answer within the reglementary period.
  2. Whether Atty. Checa-Hinojosa violated her duty to inform the complainant of the CA resolution, resulting in the loss of the right to appeal.
  3. Whether the recommended penalties by the IBP are appropriate.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.