Case Digest (A.C. No. 4646)
Facts:
Rosita S. Torres v. Atty. Amado D. Orden, A.C. No. 4646, April 06, 2000, the Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Rosita S. Torres retained respondent Atty. Amado D. Orden to represent her in Civil Case No. 1928-R (recovery of possession of a market stall) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Baguio City, against spouses Prudencio and Victorina Gayo. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Torres.The Gayo spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals. Respondent failed to file an appellee’s brief; the Court of Appeals, per a June 16, 1994 JRD report, resolved to submit the case for decision sans appellee’s brief and re-raffled the case for study and report. On September 25, 1995, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in favor of the Gayo spouses.
On October 12, 1995, respondent filed a Notice of Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court but did not file the petition itself. On January 15, 1996, because no petition had been filed within the reglementary period, the Supreme Court issued a resolution declaring the case terminated and the Court of Appeals’ judgment final and executory. Thereafter, Torres filed an administrative complaint (September 4, 1996 affidavit and August 23, 1996 letter) against Atty. Orden, alleging that he had received Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for court expenses and attorney’s fees yet failed to protect her interest on appeal.
Respondent submitted a manifestation dated January 11, 1997, stating that when he filed the Notice for Review he expected to receive a notice to pay fees and would then have filed the brief; he asserted that, had he been so notified, he would have paid the fees and filed the brief. On February 17, 1997, the Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Renato G. Cunanan, submitted a report dated November 7, 1998, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted on June 19, 1999. The IBP found that no brief had ever been filed for Torres in either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, that respondent displayed gross negligence and ignorance of appellate procedures, and that he had not been honest with the Court or his client; it recommended a one-year suspension.
The Supreme Court agre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Amado D. Orden’s failure to file the appellee’s brief and to prosecute the intended petition for review constitute professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action?
- If disciplinary action is warranted, what penalty s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)