Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82543:56391&catid=1577&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:38:36+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 5044, December 02, 2013 - FELIPE C. DAGALA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR. AND ATTY. AMADO T. ADQUILEN,* Respondents.
FELIPE C. DAGALA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR. AND ATTY. AMADO T. ADQUILEN,*Respondents.
For the Court’s resolution is an administrative complaint1 filed by complainant Felipe C. Dagala (complainant) against respondents Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. (Atty. Quesada) and Atty. Amado T. Adquilen (Atty. Adquilen), charging them for gross negligence in handling his labor complaints.
Anent the December 5, 1998 MoA, Atty. Quesada alleged that he was merely prevailed upon to sign the same for fear of losing his means of livelihood and license to practice law, and that he had no intention of reneging on his promise to pay. Nonetheless, despite earnest efforts, he still failed to come up with the agreed-upon amount.25 In a Resolution26 dated March 27, 2006, the Court resolved to refer the instant administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for evaluation, report and recommendation or decision.
In a Resolution35 dated September 12, 2012, the Court noted the Notice36 of the IBP’s November 19, 2011 Resolution, and thereafter sent notices to the parties as well as the IBP-CBD, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Public Information Office. However, the notice sent to Atty. Adquilen was returned unserved with the notation “Return to Sender, Deceased.” 37 Thus, in the Resolutions dated February 20, 201338 and June 10, 2013, the IBP was required to furnish the Court with the death certificate of Atty. Adquilen. On August 30, 2013,39 the IBP filed its compliance,40 attaching therewith the Certificate of Death41 of Atty. Adquilen which indicates that the latter passed away on June 22, 2008 due to cardiac arrhythmia. In view of Atty. Adquilen’s death prior to the promulgation of this Decision,42 the Court, bearing in mind the punitive nature of administrative liabilities,43 hereby dismisses the case against him. Hence, what is left for resolution is the complaint against Atty. Quesada.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Quesada should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in handling complainant’s labor case.
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCEDURES. Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. x x x CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. x x x CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. x x x Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
In Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr.,55 a lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for inexcusable negligence that resulted in the dismissal of complainant’s appeal and for misrepresentations committed before the CA, in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code. In the cases of Cheng v. Atty. Agravante56 and Perea v. Atty. Almadro,57 respondent-lawyers were similarly punished for their negligence in the discharge of their duties to their client and for misrepresentation committed before the Court, in violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code. Hence, consistent with existing jurisprudence, the Court adopts the penalty recommended by the IBP and accordingly suspends Atty. Quesada for a period of one (1) year. The Court must, however, clarify that the foregoing resolution should not include a directive to return the amount of P74,000.00 as ordered by the IBP in its November 19, 2011 Resolution which represents the settlement initially offered by Capitol in the dismissed labor case. The return of the said amount partakes the nature of a purely civil liability which should not be dealt with during an administrative-disciplinary proceeding such as this case. In Tria-Samonte v. Obias,58 the Court recently illumined that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are only confined to the issue of whether or not the respondent-lawyer is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar and that the only concern is his administrative liability. Thus, matters which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer’s professional engagement, such as the liabilities of the parties which are purely civil in nature, should be threshed out in a proper proceeding of such nature, and not during administrative-disciplinary proceedings, as in this case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is accordingly SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. On the other hand, the administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Amado T. Adquilen is hereby DISMISSED in view of his supervening death. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts.
Carpio,(Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
* Passed away on June 22, 2008 as shown in the Certificate of Death; see rollo, pp. 277-278.
3 Id. at 14-15. Penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Norma C. Olegario.
8 Id. at 58-59. Penned by Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando.
11 Id. at 20. See Order dated July 15, 1997.
12 Id. at 61-64. Penned by Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, with Presiding Commissioner Rogelio I. Rayala and Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso (now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals), concurring.
14 Id. at 68 and 70.
18 Id. at 129 and 181-182, dorsal portion.
19 See Resolution dated November 7, 2005; id. at 193.
20 See Resolutions dated December 6, 2000 and February 11, 2004; id. at 171 and 182.
21 See Resolution dated June 27, 2005; id. at 183.
22 Evidenced by Official Receipt No. 1866259 A; id. at 189.
27 See Notice of Mandatory Conference dated June 13, 2006; id. at 197.
28 See Special Power of Attorney dated August 24, 2006; id. at 202-203.
29 See Minutes of the Hearing; id. at 204.
30 See Manifestation dated September 19, 2006; id. at 213.
31 See Compliance with Waiver of Appearance; id. at 215-218.
33 Id. at 258. Should be March 24, 1997 (id. at 20).
40 See Letter dated August 29, 2013; id. at 276.
42Bayaca v. Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1676, January 29, 2009, 577 SCRA 93, 107.
44Pitcher v. Gagate, A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013.
45Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. v. Chua, A.C. No. 6942, July 1, 2013.
46Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr., A.C. No. 4955, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 367, 374.
51Sambajon v. Atty. Suing, 534 Phil. 84, 101 (2006).
53Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr., supra note 46, at 375.
54Anastacio-Briones v. Atty. Zapanta, 537 Phil. 218, 224 (2006).
56 469 Phil. 869 (2004).
57 447 Phil. 434 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.