Joseph C. Chua vs.
Atty. Arturo M. De Castro
A.C. No. 10671.
December 5, 2016
Facts
Before the Court is a
Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by respondent Atty. Arturo M.
De Castro (Atty. De Castro) of the Court's Resolution dated November
25, 2015 which found him liable for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) and was meted out the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
Chua alleged that his
company, Nemar Computer Resources Corp. (NCRC) filed a collection
case against Dr. Concepcion Aguila Memorial College, represented by
its counsel Atty. De Castro. According to Chua, since the filing of
the collection case on June 15, 2006, it took more than five (5)
years to present one witness of NCRC due to Atty. De Castro's
propensity to seek postponements of agreed hearing dates for
unmeritorious excuses. Atty. De Castro's flimsy excuses would vary
from simple absence without notice, to claims of alleged ailment
unbacked by any medical certificates, to claims of not being ready
despite sufficient time given to prepare, to the sending of a
representative lawyer who would profess non-knowledge of the case to
seek continuance, to a plea for the postponement without providing
any reason therefore.
For his defense, Atty.
De Castro countered that his pleas for continuance and resetting were
based on valid grounds. Also, he pointed out that most of the
resetting were [sic] without the objection of the counsel for NCRC,
and that, certain resettings were even at the instance of the latter.
On April 16, 2013, the
IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting and approving
with modification the Report and Recommendation of the CBD. The Board
of Governors modified the penalty meted out to [Atty. De Castro] [by]
reducing the period of suspension from six (6) months to three (3)
months.
On November 25, 2015,
the Court affirmed the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. The Court held that Atty. De
Castro violated his oath of office in his handling of the collection
case filed against his client. Undaunted with the Court's ruling,
Atty. De Castro filed the present motion for reconsideration. He
strongly disputes the allegations of Chua averring that the long
delay in the disposition of the collection case before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) was due to the several postponements which were
found meritorious by the RTC.
Issue
Whether Atty. De
Castro's suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months is
proper.
Ruling
After a second hard look
at the facts of the case, relevant laws, and jurisprudence, the Court
finds merit in the motion for reconsideration. A lawyer indubitably
owes fidelity to the cause of his clients, and is thus expected to
serve the client with competence and utmost diligence. He is enabled
to utilize every honorable means to defend the cause of his client
and secure what is due the latter. Under the CPR, every lawyer is
required to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Upon careful
consideration of the circumstances, the Court finds that the delay in
the disposition of Civil Case No. 7939 was not solely attributable to
Atty. De Castro. The trial court itself, either at its own initiative
or at the instance of Chua's counsel, allowed the delays.
Consequently, if not all of such delays were attributable to Atty: De
Castro's doing, it would be unfair to hold him solely responsible for
the delays caused in the case. Moreover, it appears that the trial
court granted Atty. De Castro's several motions for resetting of the
trial; and that at no time did the trial court sanction or cite him
for contempt of court for abuse on account of such motions. Verily,
if his explanations for whatever delays he might have caused were
accepted by the trial court without any reservations or conditions,
there would be no legitimate grievance to be justly raised against
him on the matter.
While Atty. De Castro's
repeated requests for resetting and postponement of the trial of the
case may be considered as contemptuous if there was a showing of
abuse on his part, the Court, however, finds that Chua failed to show
that Atty. De Castro was indeed moved to cause delays by malice, or
dishonesty, or deceit, or grave misconduct as to warrant a finding of
administrative liability against him. The operative phrase for
causing delay in any suit or proceeding under Rule 1.03 is ''for
any corrupt motive or interest." Considering that this
matter concerned Atty. De Castro's state of mind, it absolutely
behooved Chua to present sufficient evidence of the overt acts
committed by Atty. De Castro that demonstrated his having
deliberately intended thereby to do wrong or to cause damage to him
and his business. That demonstration, however, was not made by Chua.
Notwithstanding the
absence of malice, dishonesty, or ill motive, it is good to remind
Atty. De Castro that as a member of the Bar, he is expected to exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice and to be more circumspect
whenever seeking the postponements of cases.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
respondent Atty. Arturo M. De Castro is hereby GRANTED. The
Court's Resolution dated November 25, 2015 is SET ASIDE. Atty.
Arturo M. De Castro is ADMONISHED to exercise the necessary
prudence required in the practice of his legal profession in his
representation of the defendant in Civil Case No. 7939 in the
Regional Trial Court of Batangas City.
Mali po yung dispositive portion. Mali actually pati yung ratio hehe
ReplyDelete