CANON 2 CASE "Complainant likewise alleged that Respondent executed an Affidavit in

favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein
A.C. No. 6252 October 5, 2004 he was actively representing his client. Finally, Complainant alleges that
on a certain date, Respondent accompanied by several persons waited for
JONAR SANTIAGO, complainant, Complainant after the hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed
vs. him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled
Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN, respondent. threats."6

DECISION On March 23, 2001, pursuant to the January 19, 2001 Order of the
PANGANIBAN, J.: CBD,7 Atty. Rafanan filed his verified Answer.8 He admitted having
administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were attached to the
Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of verified Complaint. He believed, however, that the non-notation of their
their duties, which are impressed with public interest. They are enjoined to Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the Counter-affidavits was
comply faithfully with the solemnities and requirements of the Notarial Law. allowed.
This Court will not hesitate to mete out appropriate sanctions to those who
violate it or neglect observance thereof. He opined that the notation of residence certificates applied only to
documents acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for
The Case and the Facts affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government
offices. He pointed out that in the latter, the affidavits, which were sworn to
Before us is a verified Complaint1 filed by Jonar Santiago, an employee of the before government prosecutors, did not have to indicate the residence
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), for the disbarment of Atty. certificates of the affiants. Neither did other notaries public in Nueva Ecija --
Edison V. Rafanan. The Complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar some of whom were older practitioners -- indicate the affiants’ residence
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on January 16, certificates on the documents they notarized, or have entries in their notarial
2001. It charged Atty. Rafanan with deceit; malpractice or other gross register for these documents.
misconduct in office under Section 27 of Rule 1382 of the Rules of Court; and
violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 1.033, Canon 54, and Canons 12.075 and As to his alleged failure to comply with the certification required by Section 3
12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). of Rule 1129 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent explained that as
counsel of the affiants, he had the option to comply or not with the
In his Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid Jr. certification. To nullify the Affidavits, it was complainant who was duty-
summarized the allegations of the complainant in this wise: bound to bring the said noncompliance to the attention of the prosecutor
conducting the preliminary investigation.
"x x x. In his Letter-Complaint, Complainant alleged, among others, that
Respondent in notarizing several documents on different dates failed As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent argued that
and/or refused to: a)make the proper notation regarding the cedula or lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients "on substantial matters, in
community tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the details of the cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice."
notarized documents in the notarial register; and c) make and execute the Complainant charged respondent’s clients with attempted murder.
certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged
notarized, all in violation of the notarial provisions of the Revised crime occurred, "his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice."
Administrative Code.
Respondent alleged that it was complainant who had threatened and Law on the execution of a certification, the entry of such certification in the
harassed his clients after the hearing of their case by the provincial notarial register, and the indication of the affiant’s residence certificate. The
prosecutor on January 4, 2001. Respondent requested the assistance of the IBP Board of Governors found his excuse for the violations unacceptable. It
Cabanatuan City Police the following day, January 5, 2001, which was the modified, however, the recommendation20 of the investigating commissioner
next scheduled hearing, to avoid a repetition of the incident and to allay the by increasing the fine to "₱3,000 with a warning that any repetition of the
fears of his clients. In support of his allegations, he submitted violation will be dealt with a heavier penalty."
Certifications10 from the Cabanatuan City Police and the Joint Affidavit11 of
the two police officers who had assisted them. The other charges -- violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court;
and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR -- were dismissed for
Lastly, he contended that the case had been initiated for no other purpose insufficiency of evidence.
than to harass him, because he was the counsel of Barangay Captain Ernesto
Ramos in the cases filed by the latter before the ombudsman and the BJMP The Court’s Ruling
against complainant.
We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
After receipt of respondent’s Answer, the CBD, through Commissioner
Tyrone R. Cimafranca, set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001, at two Respondent’s Administrative Liability
o’clock in the afternoon. Notices12 of the hearing were sent to the parties by Violation of the Notarial Law
registered mail. On the scheduled date and time of the hearing, only
complainant appeared. Respondent was unable to do so, apparently because The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public.
he had received the Notice only on June 8, 2001.13 The hearing was reset to They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged
July 3, 2001 at two o’clock in the afternoon. before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption
from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as
On the same day, June 5, 2001, complainant filed his Reply14 to the verified part of such certification.21 They are also required to maintain and keep a
Answer of respondent. The latter’s Rejoinder was received by the CBD on notarial register; to enter therein all instruments notarized by them; and to
July 13, 2001.15 It also received complainant’s Letter-Request16 to dispense "give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before [them]
with the hearings. Accordingly, it granted that request in its Order17 dated a number corresponding to the one in [their] register [and to state therein]
July 24, 2001, issued through Commissioner Cimafranca. It thereby directed the page or pages of [their] register, on which the same is
the parties to submit their respective memoranda within fifteen days from recorded."22 Failure to perform these duties would result in the revocation of
receipt of the Order, after which the case was to be deemed submitted for their commission as notaries public.23
resolution.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected,
The CBD received complainant’s Memorandum18 on September 26, 2001. considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to
Respondent did not file any. notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their commissions are
presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements.
The IBP’s Recommendation
In Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos,24 the Court explained the value and meaning of
On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. notarization as follows:
XVI-2003-17219 approving and adopting the Investigating Commissioner’s
Report that respondent had violated specific requirements of the Notarial
 "The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be aforementioned clients. These documents became the basis of the present
overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Complaint.
It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who
are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization As correctly pointed out by the investigating commissioner, Section 3 of Rule
converts a private document into a public document thus making that 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly requires respondent as
document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. notary -- in the absence of any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. authorized to administer the oath -- to "certify that he has personally
Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed
rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and and understood their affidavits." Respondent failed to do so with respect to
appended to a private instrument." the subject Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits in the belief that -- as counsel
for the affiants -- he was not required to comply with the certification
For this reason, notaries public should not take for granted the solemn duties requirement.
pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods in their performance of the
notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are expected to exert It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of
utmost care in the performance of their duties,25 which are dictated by public the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.26 They are
policy and are impressed with public interest. expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the
rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the
It is clear from the pleadings before us -- and respondent has readily existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent
admitted -- that he violated the Notarial Law by failing to enter in the enactments and jurisprudence.27 It is imperative that they be conversant
documents notations of the residence certificate, as well as the entry with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they
number and the pages of the notarial registry. may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as
members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing
Respondent believes, however, that noncompliance with those requirements mistakes.
is not mandatory for affidavits relative to cases pending before the courts
and government agencies. He points to similar practices of older notaries in Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility is placed upon
Nueva Ecija. them by reason of their solemn oath to obey the laws.28 No custom or age-
old practice provides sufficient excuse or justification for their failure to
We cannot give credence to, much less honor, his claim. His belief that the adhere to the provisions of the law. In this case, the excuse given by
requirements do not apply to affidavits is patently irrelevant. No law respondent exhibited his clear ignorance of the Notarial Law, the Rules of
dispenses with these formalities. Au contraire, the Notarial Law makes no Criminal Procedure, and the importance of his office as a notary public.
qualification or exception. It is appalling and inexcusable that he did away
with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Nonetheless, we do not agree with complainant’s plea to disbar respondent
Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification from the practice of law. The power to disbar must be exercised with great
for breaking the law. caution.29 Disbarment will be imposed as a penalty only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the
We note further that the documents attached to the verified Complaint are lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Where any lesser
the Joint Counter-Affidavit of respondent’s clients Ernesto Ramos and Rey penalty can accomplish the end desired, disbarment should not be
Geronimo, as well as their witnesses’ Affidavits relative to Criminal Case No. decreed.30 Considering the nature of the infraction and the absence of deceit
69-2000 for attempted murder, filed by complainant’s brother against the on the part of respondent, we believe that the penalty recommended by the
IBP Board of Governors is a sufficient disciplinary measure in this case.
 Lawyer as Witness for Client Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at
the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain
Complainant further faults respondent for executing before Prosecutor from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they
Leonardo Padolina an affidavit corroborating the defense of alibi proffered do so, to withdraw from active management of the case.34
by respondent’s clients, allegedly in violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR: "A
lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client." Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed by
Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make him
Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the CPR states: administratively liable for the following reasons:

"Rule 12.08 – A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and
defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of in a criminal action in which the latter’s life and liberty are at stake.35 It
an instrument and the like; is the fundamental right of the accused to be afforded full opportunity
to rebut the charges against them. They are entitled to suggest all those
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to reasonable doubts that may arise from the evidence as to their guilt;
the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, and to ensure that if they are convicted, such conviction is according to
entrust the trial of the case to another counsel." law.

Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a Having undertaken the defense of the accused, respondent, as defense
witness,31 except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort to save his clients from a
communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.32 wrong conviction. He had the duty to present -- by all fair and honorable
means -- every defense and mitigating circumstance that the law
The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task permitted, to the end that his clients would not be deprived of life,
of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as liberty or property, except by due process of law.36
advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In
contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively plead and The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the defense
defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date and time
impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could not have possibly
question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the lawyers who committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in his Affidavit,
testify for their clients. complainant does not dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the
falsity of its contents.
"Acting or appearing to act in the double capacity of lawyer and witness for
the client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect the Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in which
truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as lawyers give their testimonies during the trial. In this instance, the Affidavit
disinterested. The people will have a plausible reason for thinking, and if was submitted during the preliminary investigation which, as such, was
their sympathies are against the lawyer’s client, they will have an merely inquisitorial.37 Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a
opportunity, not likely to be neglected, for charging, that as a witness he preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of securing innocent
fortified it with his own testimony. The testimony of the lawyer becomes persons against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions; protecting
doubted and is looked upon as partial and untruthful."33 them from open and public accusations of crime and from the trouble as well
as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State from useless
and expensive prosecutions.38 The investigation is advisedly called CANON 3 CASE NUMBER 1
preliminary, as it is yet to be followed by the trial proper.
A.C. No. 5299 August 19, 2003
Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind respondent to
refrain from accepting employment in any matter in which he knows or has ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
reason to believe that he may be an essential witness for the prospective Information Office, Complainant,
client. Furthermore, in future cases in which his testimony may become vs.
essential to serve the "ends of justice," the canons of the profession require ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent.
him to withdraw from the active prosecution of these cases.
x-----------------------x
No Proof of Harassment
G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003
The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered insulting
words and veiled threats is not supported by evidence. Allegation is never ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Petitioner,
equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.39 It is vs.
not the self-serving claim of complainant but the version of respondent that IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his
is more credible, considering that the latter’s allegations are corroborated by capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information
the Affidavits of the police officers and the Certifications of the Cabanatuan Office, Respondents.
City Police.
RESOLUTION
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the Notarial
Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
hereby FINED ₱3,000 with a warning that similar infractions in the future will
be dealt with more severely. This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared
in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which
SO ORDERED. reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667."1

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio Morales*, JJ., concur. Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office
of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number and
pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed
that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling
annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months,
provided the case will not involve separation of property or custody of
children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the
other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.

Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public
Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in
the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were required to manifest
issue of The Philippine Star.2 whether or not they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the
basis of the pleadings.10 Complainant filed his Manifestation on April 25,
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant 2003, stating that he is not submitting any additional pleading or evidence
Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an and is submitting the case for its early resolution on the basis of pleadings
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper and records thereof. 11 Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental
advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27
of the Rules of Court.3 We agree with the IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-606.

In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the time has
come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the absolute primarily to solicit legal business.
prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer
advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old prohibition should Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
against him and that the Court promulgate a ruling that advertisement of claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and
public order as long as it is dignified.4 Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
investigation, report and recommendation.5 On June 29, 2002, the IBP therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306,6 finding office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other
respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do
The IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11, 2002.7 so.

In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.12 It
Reconsideration,8 which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002- is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
606 dated October 19, 20029 consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.13 The
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.14 The duty to
157053 entitled, "Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP Commission public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
on Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court Administrator and consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or
Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents." This petition was consolidated what they owe to themselves.15 The following elements distinguish the legal
with A.C. No. 5299 per the Court’s Resolution dated March 4, 2003. profession from a business:
 1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.20 Thus, the use of simple
in which one may attain the highest eminence without making much signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence
money; address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals
bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice now acceptable.21 Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent
involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability; with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical
and informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary; Clinic, Inc.:22

4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the
and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising lawyer’s name and the names of his professional associates; addresses,
and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and
clients.16 place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of
graduation, degrees and other educational distinctions; public or quasi-public
There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions;
himself admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements. While membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal
he professes repentance and begs for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other
rings hollow considering the fact that he advertised his legal services again reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their
after he pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he had no intention written consent, the names of clients regularly represented.
to violate the rules. Eight months after filing his answer, he again advertised
his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that
Newspaper.17 Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine,
published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell.18 Such acts of trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes.
respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Court’s For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
authority. informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program.
Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure
a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an
institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card
permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he
annulment may be obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law
of the case,19 he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law
disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address,
do so. being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may
likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. designation of special branch of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)
However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity
of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is
found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is Eulogio B. Reyes, now deceased, filed an action for damages with the then
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal, Pasay City Branch,
of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the against the Director of Public Works, the Republic of the Philippines and
same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. petitioner herein, B. R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. The case was docketed as
Civil Case No. 757-R. 1
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney and be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country On 7 May 1973, the trial court rendered a decision finding petitioner liable
for their information and guidance. for damages but absolving the other defendants. 2

SO ORDERED. Petitioner, thru its counsel, the law firm of Baizas, Alberto and Associates,
timely appealed the adverse decision to the respondent Court of Appeals,
Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur. which docketed the case as C.A.-G.R. No. 53546-R. 3
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business.
During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff-appellee therein, Eulogio B.
Reyes, died. Upon prior leave of the respondent Court, he was substituted by
his heirs — Enrique N. Reyes, Felicisima R. Natividad, Donna Marie N. Reyes
CANON 3: CASE NUMBER 3 and Renne Marie N. Ryes — who are now the private respondents in this
present petition.
G.R. No. L-41862 February 7, 1992
On 19 February 1974, petitioner, thru its then counsel of record, received
B. R. SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, notice to file Appellant's Brief within 45 days from receipt thereof. It had,
vs. therefore, until 5 April 1974 within which to comply.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EULOGIO B. REYES, NICANOR G. SALAYSAY, in his
capacity as Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, and ANTONIO MARINAS, in his capacity Counsel for petitioner failed to file the Brief; thus, on 9 July 1974, respondent
as Deputy Sheriff, respondents. Court issued a Resolution requiring said counsel to show cause why the
appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the Appellant's Brief within
Benito P. Fabie for petitioner. the reglementary period. 4 A copy of this Resolution was received by counsel
for petitioner on 17 July 1974. 5
Ildefonso de Guzman-Mendiola for private respondents.
As the latter failed to comply with the above Resolution, respondent Court,
DAVIDE, JR., J.: on 9 September 1974, issued another Resolution this time dismissing
petitioner's appeal:
This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary
injunction, to review the Resolution dated 10 November 1975 of respondent It appearing that counsel for defendant-appellant failed to show cause
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. 53546-R denying petitioner's motion to why the appeal should not be dismissed (for failure to file the appellant's
reinstate its appeal, earlier dismissed for failure to file the Appellant's Brief. brief within the reglementary period which expired on April 5, 1974)
within the period of 10 days fixed in the resolution of July 9, 1974, copy of
The material operative facts of this case, as gathered from the pleadings of which was received by said counsel on July 17, 1974; . . . 6
the parties, are not disputed.
On 28 September 1974, petitioner, this time thru the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE, 1. That late as it may be, this Honorable Court has the inherent power to
filed a motion for reconsideration 7 of the resolution dismissing its appeal modify and set aside its processes, in the interest of justice, especially so
alleging that as a result of the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas, senior partner in in this case when the case was dismissed on account of the untimely
the law firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES, the affairs of the said firm death of Atty. Crispin D. Baizas, counsel of BRSEI (B.R. Sebastian
are still being settled between Atty. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin Baizas) and Enterprises, Inc.).
Atty. Ruby Alberto, the latter having established her own law office;
furthermore, Atty. Rodolfo Espiritu, the lawyer who handled this case in the 2. That to dismiss the case for failure to file the appellant's brief owing to
trial court and who is believed to have also attended to the preparation of the untimely death of the late Atty. Crispin D. Baizas would be
the Appellant's Brief but failed to submit it through oversight and tantamount to denying BRSEI its (sic) day in court, and is, therefore, a
inadvertence, had also left the firm. clear and unmistakable denial of due process on the part of BRSEI.

In its Resolution of 9 October 1974, respondent Court denied the motion for 3. That to reinstate BRSEI's appeal would not impair the rights of the
reconsideration, stating that: parties, since all that BRSEI is asking for, is a day in court to be heard on
appeal in order to have the unfair, unjust and unlawful decision, set aside
Upon consideration of the motion of counsel for defendant-appellant, and reversed.
praying, on the grounds therein stated, that the resolution of September
9, 1974, dismissing the appeal, be set aside, and that appellant be granted The respondent Court denied the said motion in its Resolution of 10
a reasonable period of time within which to file its brief: considering that November 1975: 12
six (6) months had elapsed since the expiration of the original period and
more than two and one-half (2-½) months since counsel received copy of . . . it appearing that appellant was represented by the law firm of Baizas,
the resolution requiring him to show cause why the appeal should not be Alberto & Associates, and while Atty. Baizas died on January 16, 1974, his
dismissed for failure to file brief; Motion Denied. 8 law firm was not dissolved since it received the notice to file brief on
February 19, 1974, and the copy of the Resolution of July 9, 1974,
No action having been taken by petitioner from the above Resolution within requiring appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be
the period to file a petition for review, the same became final and executory, dismissed was received by the law firm on July 17, 1974 and no cause was
and the records of the case were remanded to the court of origin for shown; . . .
execution.
Hence, on 13 November 1975, petitioner filed the original petition 13 in this
The trial court issued a writ of execution on 21 October 1975. 9 Pursuant case against the Court of Appeals, Eulogio B. Reyes, Nicanor G. Salaysay, as
thereto, respondent Provincial Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff attached Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, and Antonio Marinas, as Deputy Sheriff. The
petitioner's Hough Pay Loader with Hercules Diesel Engine and issued on 5 petition likewise prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.
November 1975 a Notice of Sheriff's Sale, scheduling for Friday, 14
November 1975 at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, the auction sale thereof. 10 In the Resolution of 13 November 1975, this Court required respondents to
comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, and
On 6 November 1975, petitioner filed with respondent Court a Motion to issued a Temporary Restraining Order. 14
Reinstate Appeal with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction 11 dated 5 November 1975, and containing the following On 12 January 1976, respondents filed a Partial Comment on the Petition
allegations: with a Motion to Suspend the Proceedings 15 on the ground that respondent
Eulogio B. Reyes is already dead and his lawful heirs had already been
ordered substituted for him during the pendency of the appeal before the Petitioner submitted its Memorandum on 5 November 1976 25 while
respondent Court of Appeals. respondents submitted theirs on 22 November 1976. 26 On 29 November
1976, this Court deemed the present case submitted for decision. 27
In the Resolution of 21 January 1976, this Court ordered petitioner to amend
its petition within then (10) days from receipt of notice, and suspended the The sole issue to be addressed is whether or not the respondent Court of
filing of respondents' Comment until after the amendment is presented and Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to
admitted. 16 reinstate its appeal, previously dismissed for failure to file the Appellant's
Brief.
In compliance therewith, petitioner filed on 9 February 1976 a Motion for
Leave to Admit Amended Petition to which it attached the said Amended Petitioner, in its Memorandum, extensively expounds on respondent Court's
Petition. 17 The amendment consists in the substitution of Eulogio B. Reyes authority to reinstate dismissed appeals and cites as basis thereof the
with his heirs. decision of this Court in Heirs of Clemente Celestino vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., 28 Indeed, in said case, this Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of
This Court admitted the Amended Petition 18 and required the respondents Appeals — reinstating an appeal after being dismissed for failure by the
to file their Comment within ten (10) days from notice thereof, which they appellants therein to file their brief, and after entry of judgment and remand
complied with on 5 April 1976. 19 Petitioner filed its Reply to the Comment on of the records to the lower court — and cancelled the entry of judgment,
29 April 1976. 20 requiring the lower court to return the records to the Court of Appeals and
admit appellant's brief. Said case, however, had a peculiar or singular factual
In the Resolution of 12 May 1976, this Court denied the petition for lack of situation" which prompted the Court of Appeals to grant the relief and which
merit: 21 this Court found sufficient to justify such action. As this Court, through
Associate Justice Ramon Aquino, said:
L-41862 (B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.). —
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the We are of the opinion that under the peculiar or singular factual
amended petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of situation in this case and to forestall a miscarriage of justice the
Appeals, respondents' comment thereon, as well as petitioner's reply to resolution of the Court of Appeals reinstating the appeal should be
said comment, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit. upheld.

However, on 31 May 1976, petitioner filed a motion for its That Court dismissed the appeal of the Pagtakhans in the mistaken
reconsideration 22 claiming that since it was deprived of the right to appeal belief that they had abandoned it because they allegedly failed to give
without fault on its part, the petition should be given due course. to their counsel the money needed for paying the cost of printing their
brief.
Respondents submitted on 22 July 1976 their Comment 23 to said Motion for
Reconsideration. But presumably the Appellate Court realized later that fraud might have
been practised on appellants Pagtakhans since their oppositions were
On 10 September 1976, this Court resolved to reconsider 24 its Resolution of not included in the record on appeal. In (sic) sensed that there was
12 May 1976 and required both parties to submit simultaneously their some irregularity in the actuations of their lawyer and that Court (sic)
respective Memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice thereof. itself had been misled into dismissing the appeal.
 Counsel for the Pagtakhans could have furnished them with copies of his to dismiss an appeal, still such power or discretion must be exercised
motions for extension of time to file brief so that they would have upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, in like manner as the
known that the Court of Appeals had been apprised of their alleged power or discretion vested in the appellate court to allow extensions
failure to defray the cost of printing their brief and they could have of time for the filing of briefs. There must be such a showing which
articulated their reaction directly to the Court. Counsel could have would call for, prompt and justify its exercise (sic). Otherwise, it cannot
moved in the Appellate Court that he be allowed to withdraw from the and must not be upheld.
case or that the Pagtakhans be required to manifest whether they were
still desirous of prosecuting their appeal or wanted a mimeographed To justify its failure to file the Appellant's Brief, petitioner relies mainly on the
brief to be filed for them (See People vs. Cawili, L-30543, August 31, death of Atty. Crispin Baizas and the supposed confusion it brought to the
1970, 34 SCRA 728). Since counsel did none of those things, his firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES. It says: 31
representation that the appellants had evinced lack of interest in
pursuing their appeal is difficult to believe. Petitioner, thru its president Bernardo R. Sebastian, engaged the
services of Atty. Crispin D. Baizas to handle its defense in Civil Case No.
If the appellate court has not yet lost its jurisdiction, it may exercise its 757-R; however, it appears that Atty. Baizas entered petitioner's case
discretion in reinstating an appeal, having in mind the circumstances as a case to be handled by his law firm operating under the name and
obtaining in each case and the demands of substantial justice (Alquiza style "Crispin D. Baizas & Associates." Hence, the Answer to the
vs. Alquiza, L-23342, February 10, 1968, 22 SCRA 494, 66 O.G. 276; C. complaint, Answer to Cross-Claim, and Answer to Fourth-party
Vda. de Ordoveza vs. Raymundo, 62 Phil. 275; Chavez vs. Ganzon, 108 Complaint filed for petitioner in said case, evince that the law firm
Phil. 6). "Crispin D. Baizas & Associates" represents petitioner in the action.

But even if it has already lost jurisdiction over the appeal by reason of After rendition of the assailed Decision of the trial court, petitioner's
the remand of the record to the lower court, it, nevertheless, has the counsel appears to have changed its firm name to "Baizas, Alberto &
inherent right to recall the remittitur or the remand of the record to the Associates." The appeal was thus pursued for petitioner by the law
lower court if it had rendered a decision or issued a resolution which firm "Baizas, Alberto & Associates."
was induced by fraud practised upon it. Such a right is not affected by
the statutory provision that after the record has been remanded, the On January 16, 1974, Atty. Crispin D. Baizas died as a result of a brief
appellate court has no further jurisdiction over the appeal (5 Am Jur. heart attack. In consequence (sic) of his death, the law firm "Baizas,
2nd 433 citing Lovett vs. State, 29 Fla. 384, 11 So. 176; 84 ALR 595; State Alberto & Associates" was in a terribly confused state of affairs. In
vs. Ramirez, 34 Idaho 623, 203 Pac. 279). effect, said law firm was dissolved. Atty. Ruby Alberto formed her own
law office and other associates left the dissolved law firms (sic) joining
In the instant case, no fraud is involved; what obtain is simple negligence on other offices or putting up their own. Atty. Jose Baizas, son of
the part of petitioner's counsel, which is neither excusable nor unavoidable. deceased Crispin D. Baizas, took over the management of why may
Petitioner thus failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to warrant a favorable have been left of his father's office, it appearing that some, if not
action on its plea. many, cases of the defunct office were taken over by the associates
who left the firm upon its dissolution.
As held in Chavez, et al. vs. Ganzon, et al., 29 and reiterated in Negros
Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 30 We said: But, none of the former partners and associates/assistants of the
dissolved law firm filed the required appellant's brief for herein
Granting that the power or discretion to reinstate an appeal that had petitioner in its appealed case before the respondent Court of
been dismissed is included in or implied from the power or discretion Appeals. No notice was served upon petitioner by any of the surviving
 associates of the defunct law firm that its appellant's brief was due for Undoubtedly, there was inexcusable negligence on the part of petitioner's
filing or that the law office had been dissolved and that the law office counsel in failing to file the Appellant's Brief. As revealed by the records,
had been dissolved and that none of the lawyers herein formerly petitioner's counsel, the BAIZAS ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES law firm, received
connected desired to handle the appealed case of petitioner. . . . the notice to file Brief on 19 February 1974. It failed to do so within the 45
days granted to it. Said law firm also received a copy of the respondent
The circumstances that the law firm "Baizas, Alberto & Associates" was Court's Resolution of 9 July 1974 requiring it to show cause why the appeal
dissolved and that none of the associates took over petitioner's case, should not be dismissed for failure to file the Brief within the reglementary
and no notice of such state of affairs was given to petitioner who could period. Petitioner chose not to comply with it, thus compelling the
have engaged the services of another lawyer to prosecute its appeal respondent Court to issue on 9 September 1974 a Resolution dismissing the
before respondent Court, constitutes (sic) an UNAVOIDABLE CASUALTY appeal, a copy of which the former also received. Then, on 28 September
that entitles petitioner to the relief prayed for. On the other hand, the 1974, the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE moved for reconsideration of the said
non-dissolution of said law firm "Baizas, Alberto & Associates" will not Resolution which respondent Court denied in its Resolution of 9 October
defeat petitioner's claim for relief since, in such event, the said firm 1974. Nothing more was heard from petitioner until after a year when, on 6
had ABANDONED petitioner's cause, which act constitutes fraud November 1975, it filed the instant petition in reaction to the issuance of a
and/or reckless inattention the result of which is deprivation of writ of execution by the trial court following receipt of the records for the
petitioner's day in court. In the abovementioned Yuseco case, this respondent Court.
Honorable Court had emphatically and forcefully declared that it will
always be disposed to grant relief to parties aggrieved by perfidy, The "confusion" in the office of the law firm following the death of Atty.
fraud, reckless inattention and downright incompetence of lawyers, Crispin Baizas is not a valid justification for its failure to file the Brief. With
which has the consequence of depriving their day (sic) in court. Baizas' death, the responsibility of Atty. Alberto and his Associates to the
petitioner as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their
We find no merit in petitioner's contentions. Petitioner's counsel was the law appearance in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. This is so because
firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES and not merely Atty. Crispin Baizas. it was the law firm which handled the case for petitioner before both the trial
Hence, the death of the latter did not extinguish the lawyer-client and appellate courts. That Atty. Espiritu, an associate who was designated to
relationship between said firm and petitioner. handle the case, later left the office after the death of Atty. Baizas is of no
moment since others in the firm could have replaced him.. Upon receipt of
In Gutierrez & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 32 the appeal filed by the law the notice to file Brief, the law firm should have re-assigned the case to
firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES on behalf of respondent therein was another associate or, it could have withdrawn as counsel in the manner
dismissed for failure to comply with the requisites enumerated in the Rules provided by the Rules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the
of Court; the excuse presented by said counsel was also the death of Atty. services of a new lawyer.
Crispin Baizas. This Court held therein that:
In the Negros Stevedoring case, supra., this Court held:
The death of Attorney Baizas was not a valid excuse on the part of his
associates for not attending to Alvendia's appeal, The negligence committed in the case at bar cannot be considered
supposing arguendo that his office was solely entrusted with the task excusable, nor (sic) is it unavoidable. Time and again the Court has
of representing Alvendia in the Court of Appeals. Attorney Espiritu (not admonished law firms to adopt a system of distributing pleadings and
Attorney Baizas) was the one actually collaborating with Viola in notices, whereby lawyers working therein receive promptly notices
handling Alvendia's case. He did not file a formal appearance in the and pleadings intended for them, so that they will always be informed
Court of Appeals. of the status of their cases. Their Court has also often repeated that
 the negligence of clerks which adversely affect the cases handled by
lawyers, is binding upon the latter.

Compounding such negligence is the failure of the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE,

which filed on 28 September 1974 the motion for reconsider the Resolution
of 9 September 1974, to take any further appropriate action after the
respondent Court denied said motion on 9 October 1974. The appearance of
said counsel is presumed to be duly authorized by petitioner. The latter has
neither assailed nor questioned such appearance.

The rule is settled that negligence of counsel binds the client. 33

Moreover, petitioner itself was guilty of negligence when it failed to make

inquiries from counsel regarding its case. As pointed out by respondents, the
president of petitioner corporation claims to be the intimate friend of Atty.
Crispin Baizas; hence, the death of the latter must have been known to the
former. 34 This fact should have made petitioner more vigilant with respect to
the case at bar. Petitioner failed to act with prudence and diligence, thus, its
plea that they were not accorded the right to procedural due process cannot
elicit either approval or sympathy. 35

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that there was failure to show a good and
sufficient cause which would justify the reinstatement of petitioner's appeal.
Respondent Court of Appeals did not them commit any grave abuse of
discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reinstate its appeal.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the temporary

restraining order issued in this case is lifted.

Costs against petitioner.

IT SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Romero, JJ., concur.