Case Digest (A.C. No. 3967)
Facts:
Artemio Endaya v. Atty. Wilfredo Oca, A.C. No. 3967, September 03, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Artemio Endaya filed a verified administrative complaint on January 12, 1993 against respondent Atty. Wilfredo Oca alleging violation of the lawyer’s oath and “professional delinquency or infidelity” arising from Oca’s handling of an unlawful detainer action.The underlying case began on November 7, 1991 when plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Taysan-Lobo, Batangas against Endaya and his wife. The Endayas answered (the answer prepared by Isaias Ramirez) and attended a preliminary conference on January 17, 1992 without counsel. Endaya later sought assistance from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) and respondent Oca was assigned to represent them. At the continuation of the preliminary conference Oca appeared, moved to amend the answer (denied), and the MCTC ordered the parties to file affidavits and position papers within ten days; failure to do so would allow rendition of judgment thirty days after the last filing.
Respondent did not file the affidavits and position paper; the MCTC nevertheless dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on March 19, 1992 for lack of capacity to sue. Plaintiffs appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas, which directed memoranda be filed. Respondent again failed to file an appeal memorandum; the RTC, treating the case as submitted, reversed the MCTC on September 7, 1992 and ordered the Endayas to vacate, pay rentals and attorney’s fees. Endaya received the RTC decision on October 7, 1992 and confronted Oca on October 9, 1992, who denied receipt despite court records showing Oca had received a copy on September 14, 1992.
Endaya’s administrative complaint alleged that respondent’s inaction—failure to file required pleadings at MCTC and RTC levels and to inform the courts or his clients—caused loss of the suit. In his Comment (March 17, 1993) Oca denied professional misconduct, asserting he was not original counsel, that he sought only leave to file an amended answer (which he later learned was not permissible under the Rules on Summary Procedure), that he requested relief as counsel but was denied, and that Endaya failed to supply documentary evidence which Oca had requested before filing position papers or a memorandum. Oca also declined to file a rejoinder to Endaya’s reply at the Supreme Court level, later explaining (Feb. 28, 1997) that he believed a rejoinder unnecessary.
The Court referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (June 16, 1997), which, in a February 6, 2001 Report, found respondent negligent and recommended one-month suspension. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated; Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez issued a report (Oct. 11, 2002) concurring with the Bar Confidant and the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report (Apr. 26, 2003). The Court considered respondent’s repeated failures to comply w...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Wilfredo Oca commit professional misconduct and violate the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in his handling of the Endayas’ unlawful detainer case?
- If misconduct was established, what disciplinary penalt...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)