Case Digest (A.C. No. 5558)
Facts:
Sps. Lolita and Romy Galen, Sps. Enriqueta and Tomas Rasdas, and Sps. Esperanza and Ernesto Villa v. Atty. Antonio B. Paguirigan, A.C. No. 5558, March 07, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Complainants were defendants in Civil Case No. 673 (Jaime Estenor v. Sps. Lolita Galen & Romy Galen) in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Ilagan, Isabela; respondent Atty. Antonio B. Paguirigan acted as their counsel. On November 6, 1995 the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the complainants. Trusting respondent’s representation, the complainants continued his services when the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
In October 1997 complainants were informed that the Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court. Upon inquiry they discovered that, despite notice, respondent had failed to file an appellee’s brief. Respondent assured them he would seek review before the Supreme Court; the complainants thereafter gave him P10,000 for docket fees and expenses. On October 14, 1997 respondent filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review; this Court granted the motion by resolution dated November 19, 1997. Respondent filed a petition for review on November 20, 1997, which this Court denied as having been filed out of time (the due date was November 14, 1997). Complainants later received a writ of execution on April 16, 1999 and learned their petition had been denied.
Complainants filed this administrative complaint for disbarment and damages alleging gross negligence in failing to file the appellee’s brief and in filing a late petition for review, thus causing them to lose their lot. Respondent maintained he represented them without remuneration, claimed the appellee’s brief was not strictly necessary, and asserted he filed the petition under a mistaken belief about the date from which the extension ran; he also noted he filed a motion for reconsideration and opposed the execution in the trial court.
The case was investigated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, which on July 19, 2000 recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation (IBP Resolution No. XV-2001-207) and indorsed th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit professional negligence or ethical violations warranting disciplinary action?
- If liability is established, what disciplinary measure and monetary relief should b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)