Barbuco v. Beltran

FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5092. August 11, 2004.]
LUCILA S. BARBUCO , complainant, vs . ATTY. RAYMUNDO N. BELTRAN ,

respondent.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. 1 While a lawyer may
decline to render services for a person for valid reasons, once he agrees to take up the
cause of a client, he begins to owe delity to that cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and con dence reposed in him. He must serve his client with competence and
diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. 2
On July 9, 1999, Lucila S. Barbuco led a Sworn Complaint 3 against Atty. Raymundo
N. Beltran for malpractice of law, negligence and dishonesty.
It appears that on March 31, 1998, complainant, through her son, Benito B. Sy,
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of ling an appeal before the Court of
Appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 21, in the case
entitled, "Alexander Bermido, Plaintiff versus Lucila Barbuco, Defendant." On August 6,
1998, complainant, through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent the total sum of P3,500.00 for
payment of the docket fees.
Complainant's appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 58180, was dismissed by the
Court of Appeals in a Resolution 4 dated September 25, 1998 for failure to le Appellant's
Brief, pursuant to Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Complainant found out that her appeal had been dismissed only on June 4, 1999,
when her son went to the Court of Appeals to verify the status of the case.
When asked to comment on the charges led against him, 5 respondent Beltran
averred that the docket fees were paid on time and that on September 22, 1998, he led
the Appellant's Brief 6 with the Court of Appeals. However, the appeal was dismissed. On
October 19, 1998, respondent led a motion for reconsideration, 7 on the ground that he
received the notice to le brief on June 25, 1998; however, on June 26, 1998, he met a
vehicular accident which physically incapacitated him for several days; and that as a result
of the accident, he suffered head injuries which caused him to lose track of deadlines for
the filing of pleadings.
On March 9, 1999, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied on the ground that
the brief for defendant-appellant was filed forty-three (43) days late. 8
On November 22, 1999, the complaint against respondent Beltran was referred to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. 9
After hearing, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala of the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline, submitted on October 6, 2003 her ndings and recommendation that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
respondent Beltran be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years.
On October 25, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2003-
234 a rming the recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala but modi ed the
recommended period of suspension from five (5) years to six (6) months only.
After a careful review of the records and evidence, we nd no cogent reason to
deviate from the ndings and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Respondent's conduct relative to the belated ling of the Appellant's Brief falls below the
standards exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client's cause.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers states:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with
utmost diligence. Failure to le brief within the reglementary period certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE (43) days resulted in the
dismissal of the appeal.
The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and suffered physical
injuries as a result thereof cannot serve to excuse him from ling his pleadings on time
considering that he was a member of a law rm composed of not just one lawyer. This is
shown by the receipt he issued to complainant and the pleadings which he signed for and
on behalf of the Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law O ce. As such, respondent could have
asked any of his partners in the law o ce to le the Appellant's Brief for him or, at least, to
file a Motion for Extension of Time to file the said pleading.
In B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 1 0 we ruled that the confusion
in the o ce of the law rm following the death of one of its partners is not a valid
justi cation for failing to le the brief. We further ruled in the said case that upon receipt of
the notice to le the brief, the law rm should have re-assigned the case to another
associate. IaSCTE
The failure to timely le a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the part of

respondent. Complainant's liability is further compounded by his failure to maintain an
open line of communication with his client, in violation of the provisions of Rule 18.04,
which reads:
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.
Clearly, respondent's series of inadvertence prejudiced the case of the complainant.

We can not overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
clients. 1 1
Every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that every case that a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer's delity to the cause
of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected
of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client within
the bounds of the law. The Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence and he should not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him. 1 2
WHEREFORE, Atty. Raymundo N. Beltran is found guilty of negligence and
malpractice and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS
effective immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and to all the courts.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Quisumbing, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
2. Edgardo C. Perea v. Atty. Ruben Almadro, A.C. No. 5246, 20 March 2003, 399 SCRA 322,
328.
3. Rollo, p. 1.
4. Id., p. 2.
5. Id., p. 8.
6. Id., pp. 24–40.
7. Id., pp. 42–48.
8. Id., p. 5.
9. Id., p. 49.
10. G.R. No. 41862, 7 February 1992, 206 SCRA 28.
11. Teodolfo Reyes v. Atty. Rolando Javier, 426 Phil. 243 (2002).
12. In Re: Atty. David Briones, 415 Phil. 203 (2001).

Barbuco v. Beltran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barbuco v. Beltran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barbuco v. Beltran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5092. August 11, 2004.]

LUCILA S. BARBUCO , complainant, vs . ATTY. RAYMUNDO N. BELTRAN ,

The failure to timely le a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the part of

Clearly, respondent's series of inadvertence prejudiced the case of the complainant.

1. Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like