A.C. No. 9387 - Herdez vs. Padilla

This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia R. Hernandez against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices.
The complaint arises from allegations of negligence, deceit, and malpractice in the handling of an appeal in an ejectment case involving Hernandez and her husband.

Hernandez and her husband were defendants/respondents in an ejectment case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
Judge Rosmari D. Carandang of the RTC issued a Decision on 28 June 2002 which:

Cancelled the Deed of Sale executed in favor of the complainant.
Ordered the parties to pay attorney’s fees and moral damages to Elisa Duigan, representing the opposing party.

The respondents (Hernandez and her husband) filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC.
The Court of Appeals (CA) required them to file an Appellants’ Brief; however, their counsel, Atty. Padilla, submitted a Memorandum on Appeal instead.
Following the filing, Elisa Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal which was granted by the CA on 16 December 2003.
Despite the adverse CA decision, no Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Hernandez and her husband.

Acted with deceit and unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice by failing to inform them of the CA’s Resolution dismissing the appeal.
Ignored the CA’s Resolution which became final and executory on 8 January 2004.

Hernandez claims she inquired several times about the status of the appeal, to which Padilla allegedly provided no information.
The complainant was only informed of the adverse decision in July 2005 when notified by the Sheriff of the RTC.
On 9 September 2005, Hernandez filed an Affidavit of Complaint with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking disbarment on grounds of deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct, and claiming moral damages amounting to P350,000.

On 12 September 2005, the IBP Director of Bar Discipline ordered Padilla to respond to the complaint.
In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer:

Atty. Padilla denied being Hernandez’s lawyer, asserting that his representation was limited to the complainant’s husband.
He claimed that the husband, in a state of urgency, had pleaded with him to prepare what he thought was the appropriate Memorandum on Appeal.

Prior to the mandatory IBP conference on 13 December 2005, Padilla stated he had not met Hernandez personally.
After filing the memorandum, he advised the husband to settle the case, and due to subsequent lack of communication, he assumed that the case was resolved.
Upon being notified by the CA regarding the Motion to Dismiss, he attempted to contact Hernandez’s husband without success.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report dated 5 January 2009 found Padilla to have violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a suspension of three to six months.
The IBP board of governors initially imposed a six-month suspension in Resolution No. XIX-2010-452 on 28 August 2010.
Padilla later filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which led to Resolution No. XX-2012-17 on 14 January 2012, reducing his penalty to a one-month suspension.
However, on transmission of the documents to the Chief Justice, the Court adopted the factual findings of the IBP board but disagreed with reducing the penalty. The Court ultimately affirmed the original six-month suspension.

Despite Padilla’s claim of not being Hernandez’s lawyer, the Memorandum of Appeal he filed on behalf of the defendant-appellants carries his signature indicating representation of both complainant and her husband.
The allegation that no client-lawyer relationship existed based solely on receiving instructions for the preparation of a pleading was contradicted by evidence that an acceptance fee of P7,000 was received, which constitutes an establishment of an attorney-client relationship.
The failure to file the proper pleading, lack of communication, and neglect in responding to the CA’s directive are central to the grievance against Padilla.

Whether Atty. Padilla’s conduct amounts to negligence and malpractice in his handling of the appeal in the ejectment case, particularly with regard to:

The filing of a Memorandum on Appeal instead of the proper Appellants’ Brief required by the Court of Appeals.
His failure to inform his clients, especially the complainant, about the adverse CA Resolution promptly.

Whether the acceptance of a fee by Padilla established an attorney-client relationship, thereby obligating him to exercise due diligence, competence, and fidelity toward the complainant’s case.

Whether Padilla’s inaction, including his failure to file the required comment on the Motion to Dismiss and to notify the clients of a change in their case status, constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:

Whether the reduction of the penalty from six months to one month by the IBP board was justified considering the gravity of the violation.