Lawyer “fails to comply duty to client,” suspended

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has suspended a practicing lawyer for one year after he was found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In a decision penned by Division Clerk Court Wilfredo Lapitan, the SC found enough evidence to suspend lawyer Rolindo Navarro with a stern warning that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Complainant Alfredo Raffinan alleged Navarro violated lawyer’s oath and Canon 15, 17, 18, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when the latter failed to protect his interest and comply with his duty and obligation as his counsel.

Raffinan said some time in 1997, he availed the services of Navarro for the filing of a civil case against the National Power Corporation.

He said that after the trial, the Regional Trial Court ordered the NAPOCOR to pay him a total of P446,170 as actual and moral exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

Not contented, Raffinan filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court to award him consequential damages for loss of income.

The RTC granted his motion and ordered the NAPOCOR to pay Raffinan P976,170 from the P446,170.

Both parties, however, appealed the case before the Court of Appeals after they were not satisfied with the decision of the RTC.

Raffinan said Navarro assured him that he had nothing to worry about the appeal.

However, he said he learned that Navarro failed to file “brief” of the case before the CA. Thus, the CA issued a resolution dismissing his appeal for failure to file the required brief within the reglementary period.

Apart from that, Raffinan said Navarro failed to file “brief” on time with respect to the appeal filed by the NAPOCOR. Thus, the CA issued a decision dated November 6, 2008 reversing and setting aside the RTC decision and deleted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses awarded to Raffinan.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by Navarro but the CA denied the same for lack of merit.  Navarro argued that the “brief” was filed late because his messenger was caught in traffic while on his way to the Philippine Postal Office for mailing.

After carefully considering the records of the case, the SC finds that the suspension of Navarro from the practice of law was proper. It was the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the lawyer’s suspension.

“It bears stressing that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that insures that all pleadings should be filed and duly served within the period therefore; and if he fails to do so, the negligence of his secretary or clerk to file such pleadings is imputable to the said counsel,” the SC said, adding they will not tolerate such action from a member of the legal profession. —NSA (FREEMAN)