Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

The Case

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Rudenia L. Tiburdo (Tiburdo) against Atty. Benigno M. Puno (Atty. Puno) for gross misconduct and gross immoral conduct in accordance with Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

The Facts

The Complaint stems from Civil Case No. 2633-G for Quieting of Title, Reconveyance and Damages (the Civil Case) filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gumaca, Quezon by Gerd Robert Marquard (Marquard) against Spouses Antonino and Imelda Macaraeg, Fr. Rodrigo F. San Pedro and Araceli Emor.^[1] Atty. Puno was the counsel for Marquard.

Due to the absence of summons to one of the defendants in the Civil Case, the hearing was reset to enable the service of summons by publication.^[2] At the subsequent hearing, Atty. Puno manifested that this has been duly complied with.^[3] However, as Atty. Puno did not have the Affidavit of Publication to prove such manifestation, the RTC required him to present the affidavit at the next hearing.^[4] Despite repeated orders from the RTC, and more than sufficient time to comply with such orders,^[5] Atty. Puno failed to present the required Affidavit of Publication. Thus, the counsel for defendant moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the case has been postponed several times due to the fault of the plaintiff, which shows lack of interest.^[6] The RTC denied this motion and gave Atty. Puno a final chance to comply with its orders requiring the submission of the Affidavit of Publication.^[7] Unfortunately, Atty. Puno still failed to comply. Thus, on 3 June 2009, the RTC eventually dismissed the case in accordance with Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.^[8] As no action was further taken on the order dismissing the Civil Case, the dismissal attained finality on 1 July 2009.^[9]

On 4 June 2010, Tiburdo filed her Complaint-Affidavit^[10] for the disbarment of Atty. Puno alleging that: (1) Atty. Puno intentionally and deliberately failed to submit the Affidavit of Publication to cause great damage and prejudice to Marquard; (2) Atty. Puno failed to inform her (as the duly authorized attorney-in-fact of Marquard)^[11] or Marquard of the dismissal of the Civil Case despite receipt of the order containing such dismissal; and (3) the actuations and demeanor of Atty. Puno constituted gross misconduct and gross immoral conduct which is a ground for his disbarment in accordance with Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.^[12]

In an Order dated 4 June 2010,^[13] the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) required Atty. Puno to submit his Answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order, failure of which would result in his default and the ex-parte hearing of the case. Atty. Puno failed to file his Answer. Nonetheless, Atty. Puno attended the Mandatory Conference before the Investigating Commissioner. During the Mandatory Conference, Atty. Puno clarified whether the true complainant in the case was Tiburdo or Marquard, and whether there was a possible conflict with another disbarment case against him, CBD Case No. 10-2693.^[14] Atty. Donnabel Cristal Tenorio (Atty. Tenorio), counsel for Tiburdo, manifested that the true complainant was her client Tiburdo. As the parties failed to arrive at a common issue, the Mandatory Conference was terminated on 17 June 2011 and both parties were required to submit their respective verified position papers within thirty (30) days therefrom.^[15] Tiburdo filed her position paper on 24 July 2011.^[16] Atty. Puno, on the other hand, failed to submit his.

IBP Investigation, Report and Recommendation

In the Report and Recommendation dated 30 September 2011,^[17] the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Puno guilty of gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in connection with the express mandate of the Lawyer's Oath of obeying the legal orders of duly constituted authorities. The Investigating Commissioner reasoned:

Nonetheless, the facts presented and evidence adduced warrant a proper finding of gross misconduct. The pieces of evidence presented by the complainant clearly and convincingly proved that respondent Atty. Puno's act of continuously ignoring the direct orders of the trial court to submit the Affidavit of Publication sans satisfying explanation by Atty. Puno for his failure to do so despite repeated demands is evocative of this gross misconduct, x x x.

x x x x

Yet in spite of said directive and final Notice, the records of the case, particularly the subsequent June 3, 2009 Order of the trial court dismissing the case under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court shows the respondent's failure to comply. This deliberate and patent non-compliance [with] the trial court's Orders is in direct violation of the Lawyer's Oath i.e. to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein."

Moreover, the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly mandates for every lawyer to "serve his client with competence and diligence." In fact, Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 states that: "A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information." Time and time again the Supreme Court has held that "as an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever information he may have acquired which is important that the client should have knowledge of. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and los[s] of trust and confidence in the attorney."^[18]

While Atty. Puno failed to file any pleadings with the IBP, the Investigating Commissioner still took note of the argument raised by Atty. Puno during the Mandatory Conference - that Tiburdo was not the proper party to this disbarment case. In addressing this issue, the Investigating Commissioner held:

The respondent's query on proper standing is of no moment. "Rule 139.B, Section 1 of the Rules of Court state[s] that: Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person."

Correspondingly, the Supreme Court in the case of Navarro v. Meneses III, as reiterated in Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, held that: "x x x The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. The evidence submitted by complainant before the Commission on Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its resolution and recommended sanctions."^[19]

Finding Atty. Puno guilty of gross misconduct, the Investigating Commissioner made the following recommendation:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Benigno M. Puno be SUSPENDED from [the] practice of law for three (3) months for gross misconduct under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court in connection with the express mandate of the Lawyer's Oath of obeying the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities, herein Regional Trial Court of Quezon Branch 61 to file the Affidavit of Publication and of Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to timely and immediately apprise his client of the adverse decision regarding their case.^[20]

In Resolution No. XX-2012-583 dated 29 December 2012, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent violated Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Benigno M. Puno is hereby ADMONISHED with Warning that repetition of the same of [sic] similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.^[21]

On 22 March 2013, Atty. Puno filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the IBP failed to include his defense that he was no longer the counsel of Marquard when the RTC issued the orders. He alleged that he had no more obligation to interfere in the cases:

xxx [T]he ground that the RECOMMENDATION upon which the said Resolution is based had OMITTED herein respondent's DEFENSE that he was already UNCEREMONIOUSLY REMOVED as counsel of the complainant in the several cases in one of which, the trial Court [sic] had dismissed one of the complainant's Complaint in which respondent had no more obligation to interfere in said cases in which he was already DISCHARGED from handling said case as early as April 13, 2009.^[22]

To support his argument, Atty. Puno attached the letter of Tiburdo dated 13 April 2009,^[23] terminating his services as counsel for Marquard. Atty. Puno also attached his Position Paper^[24] for CBD Case No. 10-2586^[25] where he argued, among others, that: (1) Tiburdo had no personal knowledge of the facts complained of and thus had no cause of action against him; and (2) he was already "unceremoniously, unjustifiably discharged or terminated, in an uncivilized way" before the Civil Case was dismissed.

On 2 May 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP denied the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Puno and adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner suspending him from the practice of law for three (3) months:

RESOLVED, to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, finding gross misconduct on his part. Thus, the Board hereby SET ASIDE Resolution No. XX-2012-583 dated December 29, 2012 and ADOPT and APPROVE the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner SUSPENDING Atty. Benigno M. Puno from the practice of law for three (3) months.^[26]

The Court finds the report of the IBP in order, with modification as to the penalty.

On a preliminary note, we agree with the report of the Investigating Commissioner as to proper standing. While Tiburdo did not present any evidence to prove that she was indeed the attorney-in-fact of Marquard, this does not affect a disbarment case. We have held time and again that the right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the complainant suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing.^[27] As explained in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos:^[28]

A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.

Thus, it is of no moment that Tiburdo was not Atty. Puno's client in the Civil Case. What matters is whether or not the acts complained of are proven by the evidence on record.

Failure to obey RTC orders to present Affidavit of Publication

On several occasions, the RTC ordered Atty. Puno to produce the necessary Affidavit of Publication. We note that based on the records, the affidavit had already been duly executed and Atty. Puno merely had to present the same to the court.^[29] However, despite repeated orders from the trial court, he failed to present such affidavit.

Lawyers, as officers of the court, are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives.^[30] The Lawyer's Oath expressly mandates lawyers to obey the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities. In this case, Atty. Puno was mandated, in accordance with his lawyer's oath and duty to the courts, to obey the orders of the RTC and submit the necessary documents accordingly. This he repeatedly failed to do.

This Court has held that a lawyer's failure to file the required pleadings on behalf of his client constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and subjects him to disciplinary action.^[31] Analogously, Atty. Puno's repeated failure to produce the necessary Affidavit of Publication, in accordance with the orders of the court, should render him liable for the proper penalty.

Failure to inform client; Withdrawal as counsel

Aside from Atty. Puno's failure to obey the orders of the court and present the necessary affidavit, he also failed to perform his duty to inform his client of the dismissal of the Civil Case. Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information." The records show that the office of Atty. Puno duly received the Order of the RTC dismissing the Civil Case.^[32] However, he never informed Marquard or Tiburdo of the Order, causing such dismissal to attain finality. Atty. Puno merely argues that he had no responsibility to interfere in the case as he was no longer the counsel of Marquard.

The records are bereft, however, of any indication that Atty. Puno has indeed withdrawn himself as counsel for Marquard in the Civil Case. Until the withdrawal of a counsel has been approved by the court, he remains counsel of record and is expected by his client, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of his client require.^[33] This Court has held that the attorney-client relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of his appearance on record.^[34] Based on the records, it seems that Atty. Puno never filed such withdrawal with the court - he merely relies on the letter of Tiburdo terminating his services to support his argument that he was no longer the counsel for Marquard. However, to the courts, the letter is not enough to severe their attorney-client relationship. Until the withdrawal as counsel is made of record, any judicial notice sent to the counsel is binding upon the client, even though as between them, the professional relationship may have been terminated.^[35]

The Order of the RTC dismissing the Civil Case has been sent accordingly to Atty. Puno.^[36] Despite receipt of this Order, Atty. Puno failed to inform Marquard that the case has been dismissed. If he truly considered himself discharged as counsel, it is with more reason that Atty. Puno should have informed Marquard of the dismissal, to enable the latter and his new counsel to take the necessary and appropriate actions, if any. This Court has held that a lawyer mindful of the interest of his client should inform his client of the court's order addressed to him, especially if he considered himself discharged, in order for the client and the new counsel to be guided accordingly.^[37]

Proper Penalty

The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.^[38] In previous cases, when a lawyer ignores the lawful orders of duly constituted authorities, as required by the Lawyer's Oath, this Court imposed the penalty of suspension when the lawyer is also guilty of violating his duties as a lawyer.^[39] Atty. Puno, in addition to his non-compliance with the orders of the RTC, also violated his duty to inform his client of the status of the case. In analogous cases where lawyers failed in their duty to inform their clients of the status of their cases, we have meted out the penalty of suspension, usually for a period of six (6) months.^[40]

In this case, however, a more severe sanction is required. We note that this is not the first instance that Atty. Puno has been suspended by this Court. On 17 April 2013, Atty. Puno was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, as Atty. Puno misrepresented himself to the courts that he had authority to appear on behalf of the complainant therein, Julian M. Tallano, when he did not possess such authority.^[41] Atty. Puno was found guilty for violations of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court^[42] and Rule 10.01^[43] of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Taking into consideration the facts in this case, as well as his previous violations of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility, this Court deems it proper to impose on Atty. Puno a longer suspension period of one (1) year.

WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Benigno M. Puno GUILTY of gross misconduct. Accordingly, we SUSPEND him from the practice of law for one (1) year. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.

This Decision shall take effect immediately upon receipt by Atty. Benigno M. Puno of a copy of this Decision. Atty. Puno shall inform this Court and the Office of the Bar Confidant in writing of the date he received a copy of this Decision. Copies of this Decision shall be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this Decision to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 6-10.

^[2] Id. at 14.

^[3] Id. at 17.

^[4] Id. at 23.

^[5] Id. at 18 and 21.

^[6] Id. at 23.

^[7] Id.

^[8] Rules of Court, Rule 17, Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. - If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

^[9] Rollo, p. 25.

^[10] Id. at 2-5.

^[11] Id. at 44.

^[12] Rule 138, Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.

^[13] Rollo, p. 30.

^[14] Id. at 38.

^[15] Id. at 40.

^[16] Id. at 41-49.

^[17] Id. at 53-62.

^[18] Id. at 59-61.

^[19] Id. at 57.

^[20] Id. at 62.

^[21] Id. at 52.

^[22] Id. at 63.

^[23] Id. at 66.

^[24] Id. at 67-78.

^[25] Entitled "Gerd Robert Marquard, represented by Loida Marquard and Rudina L. Tiburdo v. Benigno M. Puno."

^[26] Rollo, p. 99.

^[27] Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116, 12 March 2014, 718 SCRA 450, citing Heck v. Judge Santos, 467 Phil. 798, 822 (2004). See also Agno v. Cagatan, 580 Phil. 1 (2008), citing Navarro v. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520 (1998) and Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, Jr., 514 Phil. 15 (2005).

^[28] 349 Phil. 7, 15 (1998).

^[29] Rollo, p. 26.

^[30] Sibulo v. Ilagan, 486 Phil. 197, 203-304 (2004).

^[31] Tejano v. Baterina, A.C. No. 8235, 27 January 2015, citing Villaflores v. Limos, 563 Phil. 453, 463 (2007).

^[32] Rollo, p. 28.

^[33] Orcino v. Atty. Gaspar, 344 Phil. 792 (1997).

^[34] Anastacio-Briones v. Atty. Zapanta, 537 Phil. 218 (2006).

^[35] Aromin v. Boncavil, 373 Phil. 612 (1999).

^[36] Rollo, p. 28.

^[37] Anastacio-Briones v. Atty. Zapanta, supra.

^[38] Id.

^[39] Sibulo v. Ilagan, supra note 30.

^[40] Tan v. Diamante, A.C. No. 7766, 5 August 2014, 732 SCRA 1, citing Atty. Mejares v. Atty. Romana, 469 Phil. 619 (2004) and Penilla v. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, 4 September 2013, 705 SCRA 1.

^[41] See Julian M. Tallano v. Atty. Benigno M. Puno, A.C. No. 6512, 17 April 2013.

^[42] Supra note 12.

^[43] 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 mislead by any artifice.