Case Digest (A.C. No. 3951)
Facts:
United Coconut Planters Bank v. Atty. Lauro G. Noel, A.C. No. 3951, June 19, 2018, Supreme Court En Banc, Gesmundo, J., writing for the Court. Complainant United Coconut Planters Bank filed an administrative complaint (disbarment) against respondent Atty. Lauro G. Noel dated November 17, 1992, alleging violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from respondent’s handling of a separate civil suit (the LMWD case) filed by Leyte Metro Water District before the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte.In November 1990 respondent was retained by complainant to defend the LMWD case. He attended the initial hearing on November 23, 1990 and promised to file a comment on the application for preliminary injunction within ten days but failed to do so and likewise failed to file an answer. On December 7, 1991 LMWD moved to declare complainant in default; the court granted the motion on February 15, 1991 and allowed LMWD to present evidence ex parte. A decision adverse to complainant was served November 15, 1991; execution followed and complainant’s funds were used to satisfy the judgment.
After complainant filed the disbarment complaint, the Supreme Court repeatedly required respondent to file a comment (Resolutions dated January 25, 1993; July 31, 1995; August 5, 1996; February 23, 1998). Respondent repeatedly failed to comply; the Court imposed fines, found him in contempt on September 5, 2001, and ordered his arrest and detention until compliance. He was briefly detained on October 29, 2001 but was released after submitting a comment and paying fines. The Court then required complainant to serve respondent with the administrative complaint (January 28, 2002), which complainant did (manifested March 21, 2002). Respondent still failed to file a timely comment despite further orders (December 7, 2005; December 15, 2010), leading to fines and another order to file (July 11, 2012). Respondent sought and received a 20‑day extension in November 2012 but did not file the required comment within the extended period.
By resolution dated August 19, 2015 the Court deemed respondent’s right to file a comment waived and referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted a mandatory conference (December 8, 2015) and ordered respondent to file a verified answer by December 14, 2015; the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit culpable negligence, gross misconduct, and willful disobedience in the representation of complainant and in his failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders?
- If so, what disciplinary penalty is appropriate—disbarment as recommended by the IBP o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)