THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 7359. June 19, 2017.]

ELADIO J. HIPOLITO , complainant, vs . ATTY. CIRIACO O. ATIENZA ,

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June
19, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7359 (Eladio J. Hipolito, Complainant, v. Atty. Ciriaco O.
Atienza, Respondent.) — The Court NOTES the letter dated October 26, 2016 of Atty.
Ramon S. Esguerra, Director for Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), in
compliance with the Resolution of September 14, 2016, informing the Court that the
records of this case together with the IBP Resolutions have been transmitted to the
O ce of the Bar Con dant on September 1, 2016, with hereto attached transmittal
letter dated August 18, 2016.
This administrative case stemmed from the Complaint 1 dated October 30, 2006
led by complainant Eladio J. Hipolito (Hipolito) charging respondent Atty. Ciriaco O.
Atienza (Atty. Atienza) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
and the Lawyer's Oath.
In his Complaint, Hipolito averred that he obtained a loan from Paluwagan ng
Bayan Savings Bank (PBSB) in the amount of PhP1,000,000 which was secured by his
89-hectare property covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. 17994 of the
Registry of Deeds of Kalookan-Malabon area (subject property). 2
After the loan was granted, Atty. Atienza, PBSB's counsel, remained in close
contact with complainant to convince the latter for the possible sale of the subject
property. 3
Thereafter, Atty. Atienza introduced to Hipolito a certain Mr. and Mrs. Kintanar
(spouses Kintanar) who committed to purchase the subject property in the amount of
PhP54,000,000. 4 HEITAD

In the meantime, upon the advice of the Atty. Atienza, Hipolito requested from the
spouses Kintanar several advances as follows: (i) PhP200,000 on October 29, 1987; (ii)
PhP200,000 on November 20, 1987; (iii) PhP100,000 on December 22, 1987; and (iv)
PhP50,000 sometime in January 1988. As a scheme, Atty. Atienza would usually divide
the amount equally between him and Hipolito. For the alleged share of the agents and
brokers, however, Atty. Atienza deducted the same from the share of Hipolito. 5
Unfortunately, spouses Kintanar backed out from the transaction considering
that the bank loan they applied for did not materialize. As such, Hipolito suggested to
Atty. Atienza that they return the PhP550,000 advances made by spouses Kintanar on a
50-50 basis. Since Atty. Atienza could not raise his share yet, he convinced Hipolito to
issue a promissory note in the amount of PhP600,000. 6
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Meanwhile, in 1989, CLT Realty Corporation (CLTRC) negotiated for the purchase
of the subject property for the amount of PhP30,000,000 with the assumption of
Hipolito's obligation with PBSB.
Upon receipt of an initial payment of PhP3,000,000, Hipolito asked Atty. Atienza
about their promissory note to spouses Kintanar to which he replied "Ako ang bahala
dun." 7
On February 26, 1991, however, Mrs. Kintanar led a complaint against Hipolito
for Breach of Contract, Sum of Money and Damages with an application for the
issuance of a writ of Preliminary Attachment. Immediately, Hipolito referred the matter
to Atty. Atienza. 8
Pursuant to the Writ of Attachment issued by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80,
Hipolito's property covered by TCT No. T-119504 was attached. Although the said
property was Hipolito's family home, Atty. Atienza allegedly failed to le any opposition
thereto. Instead, Atty. Atienza merely assured him that the case was not a cause for any
immediate concern and he promised to work for a settlement considering that Mrs.
Kintanar's counsel is his close friend. 9
According to Hipolito, Atty. Atienza's promises, however, turned out to be untrue.
He presented the following circumstances wherein Atty. Atienza was remiss in his
duties as his counsel: (i) he failed to le a Pre-Trial Brief as required by the court; (ii) he
failed to appear in the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference (PTC); (iii) his failure to attend in
the PTC resulted to Hipolito being declared in default to which Atty. Atienza again failed
to even oppose; (iv) as a result, the RTC rendered an unfavorable judgment against
Hipolito; (v) Hipolito's appeal to the CA was likewise dismissed for failure of Atty.
Atienza to le the required Appellant's Brief; (vi) he did not even move for the
reconsideration of the CA's Resolution dismissing Hipolito's appeal; and (vii) during the
execution proceedings, Atty. Atienza failed to inform Hipolito that his family home was
already levied and sold on May 2004. 1 0
On January 22, 2007, this Court issued a Resolution 1 1 requiring Atty. Atienza to
file his Comment within ten days from receipt thereof.
In his Comment, 1 2 Atty. Atienza admitted that he served as Hipolito's counsel in
the case led by Mrs. Kintanar with the condition that the latter's claim will be settled
by Hipolito by using the P27 Million proceeds from the sale of the subject property to
CLTRC. ATICcS

In essence, Atty. Atienza claimed that his failure to attend several hearings was
due to his heavy workload. As to his alleged failure to submit or le the required and
necessary pleadings, he countered that his actions were based on their understanding
that their intention was merely to buy time to be able to raise su cient funds as
payment to Mrs. Kintanar's claim. 1 3
On July 16, 2007, this Court issued a Resolution 1 4 wherein it resolved to refer the
instant administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation or decision within 90 days from receipt
thereof.
On February 20, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued a
Notice 1 5 wherein it required both parties to appear before it for a mandatory
conference.
On March 28, 2012, the IBP-CBD issued an Order 1 6 wherein it declared the
mandatory conference terminated. Also, the parties were given 10 days from receipt
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 thereof to submit their verified position papers.
On February 22, 2013, Commissioner Manuel T. Chan (Commissioner Chan)
issued his Report and Recommendation 1 7 wherein he recommended that Atty. Atienza
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years for violation of Canon
18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR.
In a Notice of Resolution 1 8 dated June 22, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Chan after
nding his recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and
applicable laws.
Upon Atty. Atienza's Motion for Reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors
issued a Resolution 1 9 dated July 28, 2016 wherein it modi ed the penalty of Atty.
Atienza by reducing his period of suspension to one year pursuant to recent
jurisprudence.
Upon perusal of the records of the case, this Court nds that the Resolution
dated July 28, 2016 of the IBP Board of Governors is proper under the circumstances.
It is well-settled that a lawyer who accepts professional employment from a
client undertakes to serve his client with competence and diligence. 2 0 Consequently, a
lawyer's negligence in the performance of his duties arising from the relationship of
counsel and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the
rights of a litigant, particularly his client.
In the present case, Atty. Atienza's attempt to evade responsibility by claiming
that his failure to le several pleadings in court was a legal strategy is bereft of merit.
Indeed, his omission did not only violate the court's orders but is also inconsistent with
the trust reposed to him by his client.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence therewith shall render him liable. Thus, once
a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and
care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his lawyer's oath. 2 1
TIADCc

Verily, Atty. Atienza demonstrated not only appalling disrespect and lack of
responsibility to the courts and his clients but, likewise, showed a reckless disregard
for his obligations as a member of the bar. 2 2
Moreover, his workload does not justify neglect in handling one's case because it
is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can effectively handle
them. 2 3
In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the circumstances
surrounding the instant case, and taking into account that this appears to be Atty.
Atienza's rst offense, the Court nds that the recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors for suspension of a period of one year is appropriate and in accordance with
the prevailing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, this Court nds and holds Atty. Ciriaco O. Atienza guilty for
violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and hereby
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of ONE YEAR effective from
notice, with the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt
with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the record of respondent as attorney
and served on the IBP, as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 courts for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

1. Rollo, pp. 1-12.

3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Id. at 4.

6. Id. at 5.
7. Id. at 6.

8. Id. at 6-7.
9. Id. at 7.

10. Id. at 7-10.

13. Id. at 88-94.

15. Id. at 280.

17. Id. at 354-363.

20. Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.

22. Overgaard v. Valdez, A.C. No. 7902, September 30, 2008.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com