Case Digest (A.C. No. 5039)
Facts:
Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia v. Atty. Rolando S. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. The complainants filed a Letter-Complaint with the Supreme Court on April 8, 1999, alleging that Atty. Rolando S. Bala failed to prepare and file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) in connection with DARAB Case No. 5532, instead filing only a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB; that he refused to return P9,200 in legal fees paid for the intended appeal; and that he hurled invectives at them when they sought a copy of the pleading he claimed to have filed.The Court required respondent to comment, but he did not; the Court's resolution dated March 3, 2003 treated his failure to comply as a waiver of his right to be heard and referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP conducting hearings on May 2 and 15, and November 14, 2003, but respondent again did not appear or submit a position paper.
Investigating IBP Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa, in a Report dated September 23, 2004, found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) using the wrong procedural remedy (filing a Notice of Appeal instead of a verified petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court) thereby causing the lapse of the filing period, (b) refusing to return the P9,200 paid to him despite promising to do so, and (c) uttering invectives to the complainants. Commissioner Herbosa recommended a fine of P5,000, reimbursement of P9,200, and suspension for six months.
On March 12, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report with modification, recommending a reprimand and suspension for six months, and that respondent return P9,200 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint. The case then returned to the Supreme Court, which rendered the present decision by the Third Division on November 25, 2005.
Issues:
- Did respondent's failure to file a comment and his nonparticipation in IBP proceedings operate as a waiver of his right to be heard?
- Did respondent commit administrative violations—namely negligence in pursuing the correct appellate remedy and conduct unbecoming a lawyer—warranting discipline?
- What sanctions and monetary relief, if any, should be imposed on respondent, including the propriety of ordering reimbursement under quantum meruit and imposition of interest?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)