Case Digest (A.C. No. 554)
Facts:
Brigido Toquib v. Atty. Valeriano Tomol, Jr., Adm. Case No. 554, January 03, 1969, Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court. The complaint arose from respondent Tomol’s legal representation of complainant’s father, Hermogenes Toquib, defendant in Civil Case No. R-958, Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte, entitled Teodulo de Paz, et al. v. Hermogenes Toquib.Respondent moved for the taking of Hermogenes Toquib’s deposition because of the latter’s advanced age; the lower court granted the motion and set the deposition for December 22, 1960 before the Justice of the Peace of Hinunangan. The deponent failed to appear; respondent moved for postponement at about 3:00 p.m., the motion was denied, and the justice submitted a report to the Court of First Instance. On May 19, 1961 the Court of First Instance considered the case submitted for decision for lack of presentation of the defendant’s evidence, and on May 25, 1961 rendered judgment for the plaintiffs ordering possession and damages.
Between June and August 1961 complainant repeatedly inquired of respondent about the case; respondent repeatedly told him to await notice of hearing. A writ of execution was served on the defendant in June 1962. Complainant then retained Atty. Romeo Gomez, who filed a notice of appeal; in reviewing the record complainant discovered that respondent had received a copy of the May 25, 1961 decision on June 7, 1961 through Manuel Labrador, who delivered respondent’s mail. Respondent later gave complainant a July 1, 1962 letter denying receipt of the decision but suggesting possible annulment proceedings.
An administrative complaint for misconduct was filed before the Court. The Court gave due course and, by resolution of December 3, 1962, required respondent to answer within ten days; the resolution was received January 14, 1963. Respondent filed a petition requesting certain documents from complainant but did not file the answer required by the Court’s resolution. The Solicitor General investigated and recommended suspension for six months. After consideration of the report, the pleadings and memoranda, the Court found respondent guilty of gross negligence and indi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s acts and omissions constitute professional misconduct warranting disciplinary suspension?
- Was respondent properly imputed with notice of the adverse decision through Manuel Labrador, such that his inaction (and the lapse of the appeal period) could be...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)