A.C. No. 3967 - Endaya vs. Oca

Case Summary (A.C. No. 3967)

Factual Background

On November 7, 1991, a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) by Apolonia H. Hornilla, Pedro Hernandez, Santiago Hernandez and Dominador Hernandez against Complainant Artemio Endaya and his spouse Patrosenia Endaya. The Endayas filed an answer prepared by one Isaias Ramirez on December 13, 1991. At the preliminary conference of January 17, 1992 the Endayas attended without counsel and admitted that plaintiffs were declared owners for taxation purposes. Continuation of the preliminary conference was set for January 31, 1992. Thereafter the Endayas obtained the services of the Public Attorney’s Office and Respondent Atty. Wilfredo Oca was assigned to represent them.

Proceedings in the MCTC and RTC

At the continuation of the preliminary conference, Respondent appeared, moved to amend the answer and was denied leave. The MCTC ordered the parties to submit affidavits and position papers within ten days and prescribed that judgment be rendered thirty days after receipt of the last submission or after the lapse of the filing period. Respondent did not file the affidavits and position paper. The MCTC nevertheless dismissed the complaint on March 19, 1992 on the ground that plaintiffs lacked legal capacity and were not real parties-in-interest. Plaintiffs appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC directed the parties to file memoranda. Respondent again failed to file a memorandum, prompting the RTC to consider the case submitted. The RTC reversed the MCTC decision on September 7, 1992, found plaintiffs to be co-owners and parties-in-interest, held the lease to be month-to-month, found the defendants in arrears, and ordered the Endayas to vacate, pay rent and attorney’s fees.

Administrative Complaint and Allegations

On January 12, 1993 Complainant filed a verified administrative complaint against Respondent for violation of the lawyer’s oath and for "professional delinquency or infidelity." The complaint alleged that Respondent failed to file required pleadings at the MCTC and the RTC, thereby causing the Endayas to lose the case on appeal and depriving them of the opportunity to present their defenses.

Respondent’s Explanation and Defense

In his Comment dated March 17, 1993 Respondent denied professional misconduct and asserted that he was not the original counsel. He claimed that his appearance at the preliminary conference was to obtain leave to file an amended answer because he believed the earlier answer was drafted by a non-lawyer; upon learning it was prepared by a lawyer he alleged he sought to be relieved but was denied. He maintained that he agreed to file the position paper and appeal memorandum only after Complainant promised to furnish supporting documents, and that when the documents were not provided he deemed further pleading futile and refrained from filing to avoid repetition. He further asserted that he fully explained his position to Complainant. When directed by this Court to file a rejoinder, Respondent admitted receipt of the order but said he deliberately did not file a rejoinder because he believed one was unnecessary.

Proceedings Before this Court and Investigative Reports

This Court required Respondent to show cause and to file a rejoinder. After delay and an Explanation, the case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation and recommendation. The Office of the Bar Confidant found Respondent negligent, concluded that his indifference and failure to file pleadings effectively abandoned his clients, and recommended a one-month suspension. The matter was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez conducted hearings, observed that Complainant did not appear and that Respondent failed to present evidence, and based his report on the Bar Confidant’s materials. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation.

Findings of the Bar Confidant and IBP

The Office of the Bar Confidant found that after appearing at the second preliminary conference Respondent was not heard from until he filed his comment in this administrative proceeding. The Bar Confidant concluded that Respondent practically abandoned his clients and thereby denied them the chance to put up a fair fight on appeal. The Bar Confidant noted some fault of Complainant for failing to produce promised supporting documents, but considered that such failure did not excuse Respondent’s dereliction. Investigating Commissioner Fernandez concurred with these findings, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted the concurrence.

Legal Standards and Applicable Canons

This Court reviewed the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. It reiterated that a lawyer must serve his client with competence and diligence under Canon 18, must represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law under Canon 19, must assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice under Canon 12, must be faithful to the client’s cause under Canon 17, and that the canons apply to government lawyers under Canon 6. The Court also noted the Rules on Summary Procedure which limit pleadings and make an amended answer improper, and invoked Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Rules of Court as expressing duties in the lawyer’s oath.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court found that Respondent repeatedly failed to perform duties incumbent on counsel. It rejected Respondent’s contention that filing required pleadings would be futile because supporting documents were lacking. The Court held that even if Respondent believed documents were weak, he should have filed the pleadings and let the court determine their probative value. The Court also found Respondent’s explanation that he sought relief as counsel to be disingenuous because Respondent had been engaged for the entire case and owed a continuing duty until the lawyer-client relationship was terminated with court permission. The Court concluded that Respondent’s failure to file affidavits and position paper in the MCTC, failure to file the appeal memorandum in the RTC, failure to inform the courts promptly of his intention not to file, and denial of receipt of the RTC decision to his client evidenced negligence, lack of diligence, a

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 3967)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ARTEMIO ENDAYA filed a verified administrative complaint against ATTY. WILFREDO OCA for violation of the lawyer's oath and alleged professional delinquency.
The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T (unlawful detainer) before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo, Batangas and the subsequent appeal to the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 1.
The Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated the administrative complaint and forwarded reports and recommendations to the Court.
The Court, Second Division, heard the disciplinary matter and rendered the decision ordering suspension from the practice of law.

Key Factual Allegations

Plaintiffs filed the unlawful detainer complaint on November 7, 1991, against ARTEMIO ENDAYA and his spouse.
ARTEMIO ENDAYA and his spouse filed an answer on December 13, 1991, which was prepared by Isaias Ramirez.
A preliminary conference was held on January 17, 1992, at which the defendants attended without counsel and admitted plaintiffs were declared owners for taxation purposes.
ATTY. WILFREDO OCA was later assigned by the Public Attorney's Office to represent the defendants and appeared at the continuation of the preliminary conference.
The MCTC ordered the parties to submit affidavits and position papers within ten days, but ATTY. OCA did not file the required affidavits and position paper.
The MCTC dismissed the complaint on March 19, 1992, on grounds that the plaintiffs were not real parties-in-interest.
The plaintiffs appealed, and the RTC reversed on September 7, 1992, ordering ejectment, rent arrears, and attorney's fees against ARTEMIO ENDAYA and spouse.
ARTEMIO ENDAYA received a copy of the RTC decision on October 7, 1992, and discovered that ATTY. OCA had received his copy on September 14, 1992, despite later denying receipt.
ARTEMIO ENDAYA filed the administrative complaint on January 12, 1993, alleging that ATTY. OCA failed to file appellate memoranda and other required pleadings, causing them to lose the case.

Procedural History

The MCTC rendered a decision dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint on March 19, 1992.
The RTC reversed the MCTC decision and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs on September 7, 1992.
ARTEMIO ENDAYA filed an administrative complaint with this Court on January 12, 1993.
The Court referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant on June 16, 1997, which reported on February 6, 2001.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on April 18, 2001, and the IBP adopted the Investigating Commissioner's report by Resolution dated April 26, 2003.
The Court rendered its decision suspending ATTY. WILFREDO OCA from the practice of law.

Issues Presented

Whether ATTY. WILFREDO OCA violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file required pleadings.
Whether ATTY. OCA's omissions constituted negligence, malpractice, or professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
What penalty is appropriate for the violations found.

Contentions of the Parties

ARTEMIO ENDAYA contended that ATTY. OCA's failure to file affidavits, position papers and appeal memorandum denied the clients the opportunity to litigate and caused them to lose the case.
ATTY. WILFREDO OCA denied committing professional misconduct and asserted that he was not the original counsel and that he sought leave to file an amended answer but was denied.
ATTY. OCA claimed he refrained from filing pleadings because he believed they would be