Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ 98-1420)
Factual Antecedents
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case which led the Partozas to file a Notice of Appeal on November 25, 2010, through their then-counsel, Atty. Samson D. Villanueva. The appeal was subsequently assigned CA G.R. CV No. 96282. Under the court's directive, an Appellant's Brief was required from the appellants; however, on April 27, 2011, Atty. Villanueva filed a Withdrawal of Appearance. Following this, he requested an extension to file the Appellant's Brief, which was permitted by the Court of Appeals.
Ignored Court Directives
Atty. Villanueva's withdrawal was sanctioned by Honnie M. Partoza, the appellants' attorney-in-fact, who acknowledged receiving the case records. However, on July 4, 2011, Atty. Santamaria submitted an Appellant's Brief without providing the necessary proof of authority from Honnie. Subsequent failures to comply with court orders prompted the Court of Appeals to repeatedly instruct Atty. Santamaria to rectify the lack of compliance, yet these directives were continually ignored.
Consequences of Disobedience
This persistent non-compliance led the Court of Appeals to cite Atty. Santamaria for contempt of court on October 25, 2012, where he was fined P5,000. The court also mandated that he file the required documentation and show cause for his lack of adherence to the court's orders. Nevertheless, Atty. Santamaria failed to respond adequately, resulting in the expungement of his Appellant’s Brief and eventual dismissal of the Partozas’ appeal on April 11, 2013.
Report and Investigation
The Court of Appeals referred Atty. Santamaria's conduct to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further investigation. In his defense, Atty. Santamaria argued that he had relied on the Withdrawal of Appearance filed by Atty. Villanueva and was unaware of the authority and conformity of Honnie to represent the Partozas. He contended that Atty. Villanueva should have continued representing the complainants.
Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Santamaria liable for willful disobedience to the Court of Appeals' orders. It was reported that despite having been notified multiple times, he did not comply with required filings, reflecting an attitude of contempt towards judicial proceedings. It was concluded that such conduct warranted disciplinary action, specifically a suspension from practicing law for six months.
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
The IBP Board of Governors a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ 98-1420)
Introduction
- This case revolves around the administrative liability of a lawyer, Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria, for repeatedly ignoring the directives of the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The context involves a civil action initiated by the spouses Bayani and Myrna M. Partoza against Lilia B. Montano and Amelia Solomon.
Factual Antecedents
- The spouses Partoza filed a lawsuit for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, Reconveyance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-710729, and Damages, which was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- A Notice of Appeal for CA G.R. CV No. 96282 was filed by the then-counsel, Atty. Samson D. Villanueva, on November 25, 2010.
- The CA required the submission of the Appellant's Brief on March 25, 2011, and subsequently, Atty. Villanueva filed a Withdrawal of Appearance.
- Honnie M. Partoza, the appellant's attorney-in-fact, acknowledged receipt of the case records.
Timeline of Events
- On July 4, 2011, Atty. Santamaria filed an Appellant's Brief, but the CA issued a directive to Atty. Villanueva for proof of authority regarding Honnie M. Partoza's representation.
- Atty. Villanueva sought an extension to comply with the CA's requirements, citing communication difficulties due to the appellants residing in Germany.
- The CA, on March 20, 2012, ordered Atty. Villanueva to show cause for non-complia