Case Digest (A.C. No. 1199)
Facts:
Leoncio Flores and Gloria Peralta Flores v. Attorney Vicente V. Duque, Adm. Case No. 1199, March 18, 1983, the Supreme Court Second Division, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court.Complainants Leoncio Flores and Gloria Peralta Flores filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Attorney Vicente V. Duque, alleging that he failed to notify them of a hearing set for July 1, 1971 and failed to appear, resulting in the dismissal of their case by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya (Civil Case No. 1758). The complaint charged respondent with negligence amounting to misconduct as an officer of the court.
Respondent answered by narrating that he was engaged by Inocencio Peralta (Gloria Peralta’s father) to file a complaint for consolidation of ownership based on a deed of sale with right to repurchase; he prepared and filed the complaint on July 28, 1969. After filing, the complainants admitted (and Peralta confirmed) they were not in actual possession, did not enjoy the fruits of the land, and the P300 repurchase price was grossly inadequate, whereupon respondent advised an action for redemption would not lie. Regarding the July 1, 1971 hearing, respondent denied failing to notify the complainants and alleged that the complainants informed him they had assigned their rights to one Choleng dela Cruz, delivered the owner's duplicate title to her, and told respondent that the defendant, Catalina Acoba, had already paid the loan and the complainants wanted the case dropped and respondent’s fees forgiven; therefore he did not appear on July 1 and did not file a motion to dismiss.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The Solicitor General framed three pertinent questions: (1) whether respondent notified his clients of the July 1, 1971 hearing; (2) whether he was negligent in not attending; and (3) whether he notified his clients of the dismissal. After investigating documentary and testimonial evidence (including Exhibits 21–23 and testimony of Catalina Acoba), the Solicitor General concluded that respondent did notify his clients, that the complainants knew the case was dismissed on July 1, 1971, and that the factual record indicated Catalina Acoba had paid the indebtedness—explaining why complainants told respondent to desist. The Solicitor General recommended exoneration but observed that respondent’s procedure—agreeing with clients not to appear to avoid a damages pronouncement without notifying the trial court—was improper and showed poor judgment, though not so grave as to warrant discipline.
The Supreme Court accepted the Solicitor General’s recommendation to exonerate respondent but did not accept it entirely: invoking the Tionko line of authority and the presumption...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Attorney Vicente V. Duque notify his clients of the hearing on July 1, 1971 and thus avoid culpability for nonappearance?
- Was respondent’s failure to attend the July 1, 1971 hearing negligent in a manner warranting disciplinary action (suspension or disbarment)?
- Did respondent notify his clients of th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)