Case Summary (A.C. No. 9387)
Background of the Case
Hernandez and her husband were respondents in an ejectment case, which resulted in a decision dated June 28, 2002, from Judge Rosmari D. Carandang. The RTC ordered the cancellation of a deed of sale in favor of Hernandez and mandated her to pay attorney's fees and moral damages to Elisa Duigan, the complainant in that case. Following this ruling, Hernandez and her husband filed a Notice of Appeal, and subsequently engaged Atty. Padilla to represent them. However, instead of filing the required Appellants' Brief, Padilla submitted a Memorandum on Appeal, leading Duigan to file a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted.
Allegations Against the Respondent
Hernandez accused Padilla of dishonesty and malpractice, asserting that he failed to inform them about the adverse ruling and neglected to file an appropriate response following the dismissal of their appeal. Despite her multiple inquiries regarding the status of the appeal, Hernandez claimed Padilla did not provide any feedback.
Timeline of Events
The Resolution dismissing the appeal became final and executory on January 8, 2004, but Hernandez only learned of this outcome in July 2005 when a Sheriff delivered the news. Subsequently, on September 9, 2005, Hernandez filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking Padilla's disbarment on three grounds: deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct, along with a request for moral damages amounting to PHP 350,000.
Padilla's Defense
In response to the disbarment complaint, Padilla denied having a direct relationship with Hernandez, citing that he only dealt with her husband. He contended that he filed the Memorandum on Appeal under the impression that it was the correct document to submit. Padilla asserted that he advised Hernandez's husband to consider settling the case and assumed that the husband had taken this advice.
Investigation Findings
An IBP Investigating Commissioner found Padilla in violation of Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a suspension of 3 to 6 months. The IBP Board of Governors later approved this recommendation, imposing a suspension for a period of six months.
Court's Review and Conclusion
Despite Padilla's claim that his initial failure to properly represent his client was due to a misunderstanding and a lack of timely engagement with the case, the Court noted that Padilla had signed the Memorandum on Appeal as counsel for both Hernandez and her husband. The Court emphasized that accepting payment from a client establishes a lawyer-client relationship, obl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9387)
Case Overview
- This case is a disbarment complaint filed by Emilia R. Hernandez against Atty. Venancio B. Padilla for alleged negligence in handling her legal case.
- The complaint stems from an ejectment case where Hernandez and her husband were ordered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel a Deed of Sale and pay attorney's fees and moral damages to Elisa Duigan.
Procedural History
- The RTC issued a Decision on June 28, 2002, ordering the cancellation of the Deed of Sale in favor of Hernandez and her husband.
- Following this, they filed a Notice of Appeal, choosing Atty. Padilla to represent them in the appellate proceedings.
- Instead of filing an Appellants' Brief, Atty. Padilla submitted a Memorandum on Appeal, leading Duigan to file a Motion to Dismiss the appeal.
- The Court of Appeals granted this motion on December 16, 2003, and the couple failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
Allegations Against Atty. Padilla
- Hernandez claimed that Atty. Padilla acted with deceit and negligence, stating that he never informed them of the adverse resolution, which became final and executory on January 8, 2004.
- She alleged that she inquired multiple times about the appeal status, but Atty. Padilla allegedly withheld information, causing harm to her and her husband.
Complaint Process
- Hernandez filed an Affidavit of Complaint on September 9, 2005, seeking Atty. Padilla's disbarment on grounds of deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct, along with a prayer for moral damages amounting to P350,000.
- The I