Case Digest (A.C. No. 7749)
Facts:
Josefina Caranza Vda. de Saldivar v. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 08, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Josefina Caranza (complainant) filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. (respondent), charging him with gross negligence in violation of Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.The underlying factual matrix began with an unlawful detainer case, Civil Case No. 1972, filed by the heirs of Benjamin Don against complainant before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, in which respondent represented complainant. Although respondent filed an answer, he failed to submit a pre-trial brief and did not attend the scheduled preliminary conference; opposing counsel moved for submission for decision, and an MTC Order dated November 27, 2003 granted the motion. On December 30, 2003, the MTC rendered a Decision ordering complainant to vacate and pay damages.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Pili, reversed the MTC and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint; the Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC Decision in a January 12, 2006 ruling. Respondent received a copy of the CA decision on January 27, 2006 but did not inform complainant nor take action; complainant later engaged another counsel but allegedly could not pursue remedies because respondent failed to timely turn over case papers.
Respondent submitted a Manifestation (May 19, 2008) explaining that he had moved at the MTC preliminary conference to suspend proceedings and have a re-survey conducted due to apparent discrepancies in property descriptions, leading to the temporary resetting of the conference to November 27, 2003; he claimed the opposing counsel failed to provide agreed documents and that he inadvertently missed the November 27 setting because of an important provincial conference. He also asserted a legal strategy based on administrative remedies involving a prior PD 27 petition and DAR survey results, believing administrative relief might protect complainant’s interests. The DAR survey later showed complainant’s tillage covered about 5,000 sqm of the property legally belonging to the heirs; relations between client and counsel deteriorated, complainant retained a new lawyer, and retrieved the case folders.
The Supreme Court referred the administrative complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation (June 18, 2009) finding respondent negligent for missing the preliminary conference and failing to act upon the CA ruling, and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Govern...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit gross negligence in violation of Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- If guilty, what penalty is app...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)