3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 271

VOL. 271, APRIL 10, 1997 109

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilabon
*
Adm. Case No. 3907. April 10, 1997.

PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., complainant, vs.

ATTY. BENEDICTO G. SAQUILABON, respondent.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; A lawyer’s failure to file brief for his

client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.—In Ford vs.
Daitol, a lawyer’s failure to file brief for his client was held to amount to
inexcusable negligence; thus: “An attorney is bound to protect his client’s
interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. (Del Rosario vs.
Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 159) A failure to file brief for his client
certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. (People vs. Villar,
46 SCRA 107) The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the
duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation
and to aid in the speedy administration of justice.
Same; Same; Atty. Benedicto G. Saquilabon suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months.—WHEREFORE, the Court
has resolved, as it hereby resolves, to SUSPEND Atty. Benedicto G.
Saquilabon from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months from
notice hereof, with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar misconduct
will be most severely dealt with.

_________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilabon

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Violation of

Lawyer’s Oath of Office.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d86e0e5c4f82fa4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 271

RESOLUTION

VITUG, J.:

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc., through its Senior VicePresident

James O. Lim, has charged Atty. Benedicto G. Saquilabon with
having violated his oath of office and, in particular, his commitment
to “conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of (his)
knowledge and discretion
1
with all good fidelity as well to the Courts
as to (his) clients.”
In its resolution, dated 25 January 1993, the Court referred the
matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
In its letter, dated 24 September
2
1996, addressed to Chief Justice
Andres R. Narvasa, the IBP transmitted to the Court, along with the
records of the case, its “Notice and Copy of Decision,” among other
things, recommending an imposition of a six-month suspension on
respondent.
Atty. Saquilabon was the legal counsel of complainant in Civil
Case No. 8058 (“Spouses Marcelino Buco and Cecilia Buco vs.
Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc.”), hereinafter also referred to as
the “Buco” case, and in Civil Case No. 480-G (“Philip Natividad vs.
Antonio Padron and Perla Compania de Seguros”) or the
“Natividad” case.
An adverse decision was rendered against complainant in Buco.
Not satisfied with the decision, complainant, through respondent,
sought relief from the Court of Appeals. On 24 November 1988, the
appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appeal brief.
Complainant moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. The
appellate court reconsidered and gave complainant a non-extendible
period of fifteen days within which to

__________________

1 Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 2.
2 Through Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino, Director for Bar Discipline.

111

VOL. 271, APRIL 10, 1997 111

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilabon

finally submit the brief. Respondent lawyer again failed to comply

constraining anew the Court of Appeals to dismiss, on 14 April
1989, the appeal. Complainant’s subsequent motions for

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d86e0e5c4f82fa4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 271

reconsideration were denied. The complainant 3

was ultimately made
to pay certain amounts to the spouses Buco.
Atty. Saquilabon was the legal counsel for herein complainant
in the Natividad case. Here, respondent filed with the trial court a
motion for an extension to file an answer to the complaint but he
failed, nevertheless, to file the answer on time. The complainant (the
defendant therein) was declared in default, thus allowing the
plaintiff to present his evidence ex-parte. Respondent lawyer’s
subsequent compliance was merely noted by the trial court. After an
adverse judgment was rendered against complainant, respondent,
acting on his own, filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals. The appeal, however, was dismissed on 10 February 1981
for non-payment of the required docket fee.
In the Buco case, respondent attributed his failure to file the
appellant’s brief to an oversight or negligence of the complainant’s
manager, Dionisio Quinto, at its Cabanatuan City branch. Quinto, a
law graduate, allegedly undertook the printing of the brief, which
respondent had prepared and submitted to Quinto, and the filing
thereof with the Court of Appeals.
The failure to file an answer in the Natividad case was said to be
due to the fault of complainant’s branch manager, Bienvenido S.
Pascual, of Santiago, Isabela. According to respondent, not only did
Pascual fail to give respondent a copy of the complaint but Pascual
also neglected to provide the docket fees required on appeal to the
Court of Appeals. 4
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (“CBD”) exonerated
respondent in the Natividad case but concluded that there was gross
negligence on his part in Buco, warranting a six-month suspension
from the practice of the legal profession. The report and
recommendations of CBD were approved by the IBP.
We sustain the action of IBP.

_________________

3 CBD Report and Recommendation, p. 3.

4 Through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez.

112

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilabon

In Natividad, it would indeed appear that Bienvenido Pascual was

unable to furnish respondent with a copy of the complaint. What
Pascual did was merely to refer the case and to give the summons, as
well as a copy of the complaint, to Quinto. The latter could not even
recall the date when he delivered the complaint to respondent
lawyer. The dismissal of the appeal due to non-payment of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d86e0e5c4f82fa4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 271

docket fees, upon the other hand, had been reconsidered by the
appellate court.
In Buco, however, respondent lawyer truly was negligent in
handling the case. It had behooved him to make certain that the
appeal brief was filed on time. His excuse that he relied instead on
an employee, albeit a branch manager, of his client is unacceptable.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:

“Canon 12—
“Rule 12.03—A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting
the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
“Canon 18—
“Rule 18.03—A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”
5
In Ford vs. Daitol, a lawyer’s failure to file brief for his client was
held to amount to inexcusable negligence; thus:

“An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability
and with utmost diligence. (Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA
159) A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable
negligence on his part. (People vs. Villar, 46 SCRA 107) The respondent
has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client
as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy
administration of justice. 6 (People vs. Daban, 43 SCRA 185; People vs.
Estocada, 43 SCRA 515)”

_________________

5 250 SCRA 7; see also In re: Santiago F. Marcos, 156 SCRA 844.
6 At page 12.

113

VOL. 271, APRIL 10, 1997 113

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs. Saquilabon

His arrangements with Quinto did not relieve respondent from his
responsibility to ensure that his client’s cause is not unnecessarily
put to possible jeopardy. The dismissal of the appeal on 24
November 1988 for Quinto’s failure to submit the appeal brief on
time should have been enough warning for respondent not to entrust
to anyone else, definitely not to Quinto, the filing of the brief
following the reconsideration of the dismissal by the appellate court
and the grant of the non-extendible period of fifteen days.
Atty. Saquilabon appears to have been short of scrupulous
candor. In asking for the reconsideration of the 1989 resolution
dismissing the appeal for the second time, he did not blame Quinto
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d86e0e5c4f82fa4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 271

but has averred that the non-filing of the brief on the extended
period granted to have been due to the fault of his secretary, “whose
poor physical 7 health forced her to render services to counsel
intermittently.”
The recommendation of the IBP for respondent’s suspension
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months is more than
justified.
WHEREFORE, the Court has resolved, as it hereby resolves, to
SUSPEND Atty. Benedicto G. Saquilabon from the practice of law
for a period of six (6) months from notice hereof, with a WARNING
that a repetition of a similar misconduct will be most severely dealt
with.
Let a copy of this Resolution be spread on the personal records of
respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the
Philippines, with copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and duly circularized to all courts in the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.

Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Hermosisima, Jr., J., On leave.

Respondent ordered suspended for six months from the practice

of law, with warning against the repetition of the same act.

__________________

7 CBD Report and Recommendation, p. 5.

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Conti vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Note.—For the inexcusable negligence of a lawyer in failing to

file an answer for his clients, he is reprimanded. (Santiago vs. Fojas,
248 SCRA 68 [1995])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d86e0e5c4f82fa4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
3/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 271

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170d86e0e5c4f82fa4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6