A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC

Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC)

Facts:

Parties and complaint for disbarment

Romeo Telles (Telles) filed a Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel (Atty. Dancel) on June 1, 2000.
Telles charged Atty. Dancel with gross negligence and inefficiency as a lawyer in handling Telles’ case.

Underlying litigation and counsel’s acts and omissions

Atty. Dancel served as legal counsel for an action for Annulment of a Deed of Quitclaim.
After losing in the trial court, Telles, through Atty. Dancel, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Atty. Dancel filed four motions for extension of time to file appellant’s brief, dated:

August 30, 1999
September 29, 1999
October 15, 1999
October 29, 1999

The CA granted all motions for extension, totaling seventy-five (75) days.
Despite the grant of extensions, Atty. Dancel still failed to file the required appellant’s brief.
Because of the failure to file the appellant’s brief, the CA eventually dismissed Telles’ appeal.
Atty. Dancel did not inform Telles of the dismissal of the appeal.
Atty. Dancel also did not offer any explanation for the failure to file the appellant’s brief.
Telles learned of the dismissal through acquaintances.
Telles later engaged the services of another lawyer.
Telles discovered that the trial court denied his Formal Offer of Evidence for having been filed out of time.
Atty. Dancel filed the Formal Offer of Evidence eighty-eight (88) days after the given period.

Initiation of administrative case and repeated non-compliance by respondent

On August 2, 2000, the Court required Atty. Dancel to file his Comment to Telles’ Complaint.
Atty. Dancel did not comply.
On August 21, 2000, the Court required Atty. Dancel to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for failure to file the Comment.
Atty. Dancel filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer dated September 11, 2000.
Atty. Dancel filed additional motions for extension of time to file Answer:

a motion dated October 11, 2000
another motion dated October 26, 2000

On November 29, 2000, the Court granted Atty. Dancel’s motions.
On August 21, 2002, the Court issued a show cause order asking Atty. Dancel to explain why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for failure to file the required comment.
On July 14, 2003, the Court resolved to impose a fine of P1,000.00 or suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days in case of non-payment, and ordered Atty. Dancel to file the required comment within ten (10) days from notice.
Atty. Dancel still did not comply.
On July 19, 2006, the Court resolved to impose a fine of P2,000.00 and reiterated the order to file the comment.
On August 17, 2006, Atty. Dancel filed a Motion for Reconsideration stating that:

it was his first time to know that an administrative case was filed by Telles; and
his secretary misplaced the Resolution dated July 14, 2003; he prayed to be given the chance to submit the required explanation and comment.

On November 29, 2006, the Court granted Atty. Dancel’s request to be furnished with copies of the complaint and the Resolution dated July 14, 2003.
Atty. Dancel still did not comply with the Court’s Orders.
On April 20, 2009, the Court directed the National Bureau of Investigation to arrest and detain Atty. Dancel, directed Atty. Dancel to pay the fine of P3,000.00, and to file the required comment.
On August 10, 2009, the Court noted Atty. Dancel’s payment of the P3,000.00 fine.
On November 19, 2014, the Court required Atty. Dancel to comply with the Resolution dated August 2, 2000 requiring him to comment on the complaint under pain of a more severe sanction, within ten (10) days from notice.
On October 15, 2015, Atty. Dancel filed a one-page Comment.

Content of respondent’s late Comment and subsequent submissions

Atty. Dancel’s one-page Comment stated that:

he tried his best to present evidence for the defendants in Civil Case No. U-5840, but became seriously ill due to diabetes after presentation of evidence by the defendants, and could not handle cases properly at the time; and
during the pendency of the appeal, the parties arrived at a compromise agreement, wherein the defendants were paid by the prospective buyer P5,000,000.00 for and in consideration of the subject property.

Atty. Dancel claimed that Telles failed to substantiate the complaint.
Atty. Dancel also submitted a copy of the Certificate of Death showing that Telles died on August 10, 2000, shortly after filing the complaint.
The Court later referred the instant case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) on June 18, 2018.

OBC Report and Recommendation

On April 22, 2019, the OBC submitted its Report and Recommendation.
The OBC found violations of Canon 11 and Rules 12.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The OBC recommended that Atty. Dancel be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.
The OBC noted Atty. Dancel’s propensity to file motions for extension of time to file pleadings and then not file the same.
The OBC found that Atty. Dancel’s claim that diabetes prevented him from filing Telles’ appeal brief did not convince it, because:

the appellate court had granted a total of seventy-five (75) days; and
Atty. Dancel did not attach documentary evidence to support his allegation.

The OBC held that Telles’ death did not absolve Atty. Dancel from administrative liability.
The OBC stated that, aside from negligence, discipline was needed to set an example, and that Atty. Dancel had blatantly disregarded lawful orders of the Court, taking about fifteen (15) years to comply with the order to file a Comment.

Ponencia’s ruling (majority)

The Court agreed with the OBC’s findings but found a stiffer penalty proper.
The Court imposed DISBARMENT and ordered Atty. Dancel’s name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Separate Opinion of Caguioa, J.

Justice Caguioa expressed agreement with the ponencia in finding Atty. Dancel liable for violating Canon 12, Rule 12.03, Canon 18, and Rule 18.04.
Justice Caguioa considered the OBC’s recommended penalty of three (3) years suspension more appropriate than disbarment.
Justice Caguioa stated a “clear bright line” between:

lawyers who commit offenses that are gross because they also violate penal laws; and
those whose offenses pale in comparison.

Justice Caguioa described examples of the first category, including bigamy, siring illegitimate children with multiple women, and continuous philandering, as acts showing immorality deserving of the ultimate penalty.
Justice Caguioa viewed the respondent’s acts as falling under the second category, thus not necessitating disbarment.
Justice Caguioa voted to SUSPEND Atty. Dancel from the practice of law for three (3) years for violating Canon 12, Rule 12.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04.

Issues:

Whether Atty. Dancel’s conduct constituted professional misconduct and warranting disciplinary action

Whether Atty. Dancel’s failure to file the appellant’s brief despite granted extensions constituted inexcusable negligence and a serious lapse of duties to the client and the Court.
Whether Atty. Dancel’s failure to inform Telles of the dismissal of the appeal constituted a violation of the lawyer’s duty to keep the client informed.
Whether Atty. Dancel’s late and unsupported explanations regarding his alleged diabetes and his failure to file required pleadings sustained administrative liability.

Whether Atty. Dancel’s non-compliance with Court orders in the administrative case warranted sanctions

Whether Atty. Dancel’s failure to file the required Comment despite repeated Court orders and sanctions amounted to willful disregard of lawful orders.

Whether Telles’ death affected Atty. Dancel’s administrative liability

Whether the fact that Telles died shortly after filing the complaint absolved Atty. Dancel from liability.

Appropriate penalty

Whether the appropriate penalty should be suspension as recommended by the OBC or disbarment as imposed by the majority.
Whether the penalty of disbarment was excessive in light of the circumstances, as argued in the Separate Opinion.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC)
Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC)
Concise