Luis de Guzman, represented by his son

Rodrigo C. de Guzman, complainant, vs. Atty.

Emmanuel M. Basa, respondent
A.C. No. 5554, June 29, 2004.
Germaine Suzette C. Austero
Case No. 165 - PALE

FACTS:

Luis de Guzman filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Basa for disbarment with the IBP
for having committed misrepresentation and gross negligence in his duties as counsel.

The complainant was the defendant in a civil case for recovery of possession of two lots
and damages filed by Roxas Realty Corporation wherein his counsel was Atty. Basa.

On September 2, 1992, the RTC issued an Order adverse to the complainant. Desiring to file
a petition for certiorari before the CA, de Guzman agreed to pay Atty. Basa P15,000 for his
legal services and paid a down payment of P5,000. However, no such petition was filed by
the respondent.

The RTC rendered its Decision against the complainant. He filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied. He appealed to the CA. Atty. Basa then filed successively
three motions for extensions of time to submit the appellant’s brief. The motions were
granted but with a warning that no further extension would be allowed. However, the
respondent still failed to file the appellant’s brief instead filed two more motions for
extensions which were denied by the CA. Subsequent MR was likewise denied.

The respondent filed a petition for review on Certiorari before the SC but the Court
dismissed the petition for his failure to submit a certification of non-forum shopping duly
executed by him.

The respondent rectified the error by filing an MR and attached the required certification
signed by the complainant himself. Still, the motion was denied on the ground that the CA
did not commit any reversible error in dismissing the complainant’s appeal.

The complainant claims that he lost his case not on merits but due to technicality caused
by the respondent’s dereliction of his duty as counsel. In effect, it totally dissipated his
quest for justice and thereby deprived him of all the remedies that may be availed of. The

1
complainant thus prayed that the respondent be disbarred or suspended from the practice
of law.

Respondent’s Defenses:

1. The P5,000 he received was for the expenses to be incurred in filing the petition with
CA.
2. He filed the appellant’s brief beyond the extended period due to his illness, which
resulted in the dismissal of his appeal.
3. He signed the certification of non-forum shopping attached to the petition for
review because the complainant was ill.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline’s (CBD) Report:

The Commissioner found the respondent negligent in the performance of his professional
duty to his client and recommended that the respondent be REPRIMANDED AND WARNED
that any similar or other complaint in the future will be dealt with more severely and he
should return the P5,000 collected from the complainant.

The report was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.

The IBP then forwarded the records to the SC.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Basa should only be reprimanded and warned instead of being disbarred or
suspended. (NO)

RULING:

The Court sustained the IBP’s finding that the respondent was negligent in the performance
of his professional duty towards the complainant for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and his lawyer’s oath. However, the Court cannot sustain the IBP Board of
Governor’s recommendation that the respondent should only be reprimanded. He should
be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Canon 18 of the CPR provides that “A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.” Rule 18.03 mandates that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”

Also, Rule 12.03 requires that “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.”

In hi lawyer’s oath, the respondent imposed upon himself the duty that “he will delay no
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my my clients, x x
x.”

2
Clearly, the respondent violated the above Canons and his lawyer’s oath.

Firstly, while he eventually filed the appellant’s brief, however, it was late. His excuse that
his illness caused such delay is flimsy and deserves no consideration. A motion for
extension of time to file an appellant’s brief carries with it the presumption that the
applicant-lawyer will file the same within the period granted.

Secondly, the respondent’s contention that he signed the certificate of non-forum shopping
in the petition for review because the complainant was ill lacks merit. Quoting the CBD’s
finding, the Court held that he should know, as all lawyers are presumed to know, that it
should be the petitioner (not the counsel) who should sign the certification of non-forum
shopping in the petition. The explanation that the complainant was too old, weak, and ill to
sign the said certification is too flimsy and, therefore, untenable.

Thirdly, the respondent should have returned the amount received by him to the
complainant. Citing the case of Lother Schulz vs. Atty Marcelo G. Flores, the Court held that
where a client gives money to his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an action or
appeal an adverse judgment, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such a step and spend
the money for it, immediately return the money to his client. The respondent’s unjustified
withholding of complainant’s money is a gross violation of the general morality and
professional ethics warranting the imposition of disciplinary action.

Thus, for violating Rule 12.03, Canon 12, and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, which
constitutes gross misconduct, as well as his lawyer’s oath, he should be suspended from
the practice of law for six months.

Hence, Atty. Basa is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct in violation of the CPR and his
lawyer’s oath. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months.