Case Summary (G.R. No. 126881)
Relevant Facts and Proceedings
On September 8, 1998, Atty. Agravante's office received the decision from the Labor Arbiter, which commenced a ten-day period for filing an appeal. However, Agravante delayed filing a Memorandum of Appeal until September 22, 1998. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) subsequently dismissed the appeal due to this late filing. A crucial factor in the case was Atty. Agravante’s inaccurate assertion in his certification that he received the decision on September 10, 1998.
Complaints Against Atty. Agravante
Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the complainants terminated Atty. Agravante's services due to negligence and sought compensation for damages. In response to his inaction, Edison G. Cheng filed an affidavit-complaint against Agravante with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The investigation was subsequently assigned to Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay.
Testimonies and Evidence
During the hearing, Allan P. Abelgas, Rogemson’s Regional Sales Manager, testified regarding his new knowledge of the Labor Arbiter's decision, which he learned about via an office secretary. Sheila A. Balandra, assisting in securing the bond for the appeal, indicated that Agravante's office had confirmed she could bring the bond on September 21, 1998. Upon arrival, she found Agravante had yet to review the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Atty. Agravante's Defense
Atty. Agravante contested the factual basis of the complaint, claiming he was out of town upon receipt of the decision. He argued he returned to his office on September 10, 1998, and assumed that the stamped date on the envelope marked his receipt. He maintained that he only learned about the appeal and filing of the bond days afterward.
Investigation and Findings
Commissioner Dulay found Agravante's claims unconvincing, noting that he had not cross-examined witnesses who contradicted his version of events. The conclusion of the investigation highlighted that Agravante failed to file the appeal within the regulatory timeframe, demonstrating negligence, and his misrepresentation to the NLRC constituted a violation of his professional responsibilities.
Applicable Law and Professional Conduct Standards
The ruling emphasized the breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 10 and Canon 18,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 126881)
Case Overview
- This case concerns an administrative complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Alexander M. Agravante by Edison G. Cheng, the General Manager of The Rogemson Co., Inc. (Rogemson).
- The complaint arises from Agravante's representation of Rogemson in a labor dispute which resulted in negligence leading to the dismissal of an appeal.
Factual Background
- Atty. Agravante represented Rogemson in a case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initiated by former employee Beaver Martin B. Barril.
- On June 18, 1998, Labor Arbiter Newton R. Sancho issued a decision in favor of Barril, ordering Rogemson to pay P130,000.00 for separation pay and back wages.
- Agravante’s law office received the decision on September 8, 1998, yet he filed the Memorandum of Appeal only on September 22, 1998, exceeding the ten-day limit to perfect an appeal.
Events Leading to the Complaint
- The NLRC dismissed Rogemson's appeal due to its late filing, citing that Agravante misrepresented the date of receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision in his certification.
- Following the dismissal, Rogemson terminated Agravante’s services, leading to demands for compensation due to the damages incurred from his negligence.
- When Agravante failed to respond, Cheng filed an affidavit-complaint