A.C. No.

7749               July 8, 2013 reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him
JOSEFINA CARANZA VDA. DE SALDIVAR, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMON SG CABANES, or her to do so.
JR., respondent.
RESOLUTION THE CASE: For the Court’s resolution is an administrative complaint filed by Josefina Caranza vda. de Saldivar (Caranza) against
Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. (Cabanes), charging him for gross negligence in violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code).
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS: Caranza was the defendant in an unlawful detainer case, docketed as Civil Case No.
SUMMARY: An unlawful detainer case was filed by the heirs of Benjamin Don against complainant
1972, filed by the heirs of one Benjamin Don (heirs) before the Municipal Trial Court of Pili,
Josefina Caranza, for which she hired the services of respondent Cabanes as her counsel. At the
Camarines Sur (MTC), wherein she was represented by Atty. Cabanes. While Cabanes duly filed
MTC stage, Cabanes failed to submit the pretrial brief and also to attend the preliminary conference,
an answer to the unlawful detainer complaint, he, however, failed to submit a pre-trial brief as well
resulting in a judgment without trial. Upon being confronted, Cabanes assured Caranza that she
as to attend the scheduled preliminary conference.
would not lose the property. The MTC ended up ordering Caranza to surrender the possession of the
property.
Consequently, the opposing counsel moved that the case be submitted for decision which motion
was granted in an Order dated November 27, 2003. When Caranza confronted Cabanes about the
The MTC was reversed on appeal to the RTC, but was subsequently reversed by the CA. However,
foregoing, the latter just apologized and told her not to worry, assuring her that she will not lose
when Cabanes received a copy of the CA ruling, he did not inform Caranza nor did he act upon such
the case since she had the title to the subject property.
decision.
On December 30, 2003, the MTC issued a Decision (MTC Decision) against Caranza, ordering her
Caranza thereafter sought the services of another lawyer but because Cabanes failed to forward
to vacate and turn-over the possession of the subject property to the heirs as well as to pay
certain documents, her remedies were barred. Thus, this administrative complaint by Caranza.
them damages. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32 (RTC),
reversed the MTC Decision and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint. Later however, the Court
In reply, Cabanes asserted that the reason why he failed to attend the pretrial conference was
of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s ruling and reinstated the MTC Decision. 
because he asked for a suspension thereof and such conference was preconditioned upon the heirs’
counsel’s submission of certain documents regarding the identity of the property. Thus, when the
Cabanes received a copy of the CA’s ruling on January 27, 2006. Yet, he failed to inform
heirs’ lawyer did not submit the documents, Cabanes thought that the pretrial would not push through.
Caranza about the said ruling, notwithstanding the fact that the latter frequented his work place.
Furthermore, Cabanes alleged that there was an important provincial conference that he needed to
Neither did Cabanes pursue any further action. As such, Caranza decided to engage the
attend.
services of another counsel for the purpose of seeking other available remedies. Due to Cabanes’s
failure to timely turn-over to her the papers and documents in the case, such other remedies
Finally, he argued that the reason why he did not act upon the heirs’ CA petition was because he
were, however, barred.
opted instead to pursue administrative remedies since he found out that the land was the subject of a
petition for exemption from the coverage of PD 27.
Thus, based on these incidents, Caranza filed the instant administrative complaint, alleging that
Cabanes’s acts amounted to gross negligence which resulted in her loss.
Issue: Whether Cabanes should be suspended as per the IBP’s recommendation
In a Resolution dated March 10, 2008, the Court directed Cabanes to comment on the administrative complaint
Held: Yes. The SC cited Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code, which within ten (10) days from notice.
provide:
Facts According to Cabanes
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him. Accordingly, Cabanes filed a Manifestation with Compliance dated May 19, 2008, admitting to
have agreed to represent Caranza who claimed to be the tenant and rightful occupant of the subject
CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. property owned by the late Pelagia Lascano (Pelagia). He alleged that upon careful examination of
the heirs' unlawful detainer complaint, he noticed a discrepancy between the descriptions of the
xxxx subject property as indicated in the said pleading as opposed to that which Caranza supplied
to him. On the belief that the parties may be contesting two (2) sets of properties which are distinct
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence and separate from one another, Cabanes, at the preliminary conference conducted on October 28,
in connection therewith shall render him liable. 2003, moved for the suspension of further proceedings and proposed that a commissioner be
appointed to conduct a re-survey in order to determine the true identity of the property in
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall dispute. The MTC allowed the counsels for both parties to decide on the manner of the proposed re-
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. survey, leading to the assignment of a Department of Agrarian Reform Survey Engineer (DAR
Engineer) for this purpose. In relation, the heirs’ counsel agreed to turn-over to Cabanes in his
The SC explained that the relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost office certain documents which indicated the subject property’s description. Thus, pending the
trust and confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their conduct and results of the re-survey, the preliminary conference was tentatively reset to November
cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a 27, 2003.
lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full
attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it As it turned out, the heirs’ counsel was unable to furnish Cabanes copies of the above-stated
for a fee or for free. documents, notwithstanding their agreement. This led Cabanes to believe that the preliminary
conference scheduled on November 27, 2003 would not push through. Cabanes averred that the
Furthermore, the SC said that a lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely aforesaid setting also happened to coincide with an important provincial conference which he
reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of was required to attend. As such, he inadvertently missed the hearing. Nonetheless, he proffered
properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or that he duly appealed the adverse MTC Decision to the RTC, resulting to the dismissal of the unlawful
conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with detainer complaint, albeit later reversed by the CA.
Thereafter, pending the heirs' appeal to the CA, Cabanes came upon the information that the furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the
disputed property was subject of a petition for exemption from the coverage of Presidential Decree Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts.
No. (PD) 27 filed by Pelagia against Caranza’s mother, Placida Caranza (Placida). Based on several SO ORDERED.
documents furnished to him by certain DAR personnel, Cabanes was satisfied that Placida indeed
held the subject property for a long time and actually tilled the same in the name of Pelagia, thereby RATIO: The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust
placing it under PD 27 coverage. Due to such information, Cabanes was convinced that Placida – and confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of
and consequently, Caranza (who took over the tilling) – was indeed entitled to the subject property. their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs.
Hence, he advised Caranza that it would be best to pursue remedies at the administrative Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to
level, instead of contesting the appeal filed by the heirs before the CA. It was Cabanes’s devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and
calculated legal strategy that in the event the CA reverses the decision of the RTC, an whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. 
opposition to the issuance of a writ of execution or a motion to quash such writ may be filed
based on the afore-stated reasons, especially if an approved plan and later, an emancipation patent Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code embody these quintessential
covering the subject property is issued. directives and thus, respectively state:

Meanwhile, the survey conducted by the DAR Engineer revealed that Caranza's tillage extended to CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
about 5,000 square meters of the subject property which was determined to belong to the heirs, the trust and confidence reposed in him.
rest being covered by the title of Pelagia. Dissatisfied, Caranza manifested her intention to secure the
services of a private surveyor of her own choice, and promised to furnish Cabanes a copy of the CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
survey results, which she, however, failed to do. Later, Caranza accused Cabanes of manipulating
the DAR Survey Results which caused their lawyer-client relationship to turn sour and eventually be xxxx
severed. She has since retrieved the entire case folders and retained the services of another lawyer.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
In a Resolution dated July 7, 2008, the Court resolved to refer the instant administrative case to the Integrated Bar in connection therewith shall render him liable.
of the Philippines (IBP) for its evaluation, report and recommendation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline set
the case for mandatory conference on April 15, 2009 and required the parties to submit their respective position Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
papers.
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
Case law further illumines that a lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely
reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also
On June 18, 2009, the Investigating IBP Commissioner, Rebecca Villanueva-Maala (Investigating
consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
Commissioner), issued a Report and Recommendation (Commissioner’s Report), finding
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled
Cabanes to have been negligent in failing to attend the preliminary conference in Civil Case No.
cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or
1972 set on November 27, 2003 which resulted in the immediate submission of the said case for
the court to prod him or her to do so.
decision and eventual loss of Caranza’s cause.
Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary
The Investigating Commissioner observed that Cabanes could have exercised ordinary diligence
action. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has
by inquiring from the court as to whether the said preliminary conference would push
consistently held that the lawyer’s mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se
through, considering that the November 27, 2003 setting was only tentative and the heirs’ counsel
a violation.
was not able to confer with him. Further, the fact that Cabanes had to attend an important
provincial conference which coincided with the said setting hardly serves as an excuse since
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court finds that Cabanes failed to exercise the
he should have sent a substitute counsel on his behalf. Also, Cabanes never mentioned any legal
required diligence in handling Caranza’s cause.
remedy that he undertook when the heirs elevated the decision of the RTC to the CA. In fact, he did
not file any comment or opposition to the heirs’ appeal. Finally, Cabanes’s enumerations of his legal
Records show that he failed to justify his absence during the scheduled preliminary conference
options to allegedly protect the Caranza’s interests were found to be thought only after the fact.
hearing in Civil Case No. 1972 which led the same to be immediately submitted for decision. As
correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, Cabanes could have exercised ordinary
Thus, based on the foregoing, the Investigating Commissioner ruled that Cabanes failed to exercise
diligence by inquiring from the court as to whether the said hearing would push through, especially so
ordinary diligence in handling his client's cause, warranting his suspension from the practice of
since it was only tentatively set and considering further that he was yet to confer with the opposing
law for a period of six (6) months.
counsel. The fact that Cabanes had an important commitment during that day hardly exculpates him
from his omission since the prudent course of action would have been for him to send a substitute
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Commissioner’s Report in Resolution
counsel to appear on his behalf. In fact, he should have been more circumspect to ensure that the
No. XIX-2011-266 dated May 14, 2011, finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on
aforesaid hearing would not have been left unattended in view of its adverse consequences, i.e., that
record and in accord with applicable laws and rules.
the defendant’s failure to appear at the preliminary conference already entitles the plaintiff to a
judgment. Indeed, second-guessing the conduct of the proceedings, much less without any
Cabanes filed a motion for reconsideration which was, however, denied, in Resolution No. XX-2012-
contingent measure, exhibits Cabanes’s inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his
517 dated December 14, 2012.
client’s cause.
ISSUE: WON Cabanes should be held administratively liable for failing to attend the preliminary
Equally compelling is the fact that Cabanes purposely failed to assail the heirs’ appeal before
conference before the MTC
the CA. Records disclose that he even failed to rebut Caranza's allegation that he neglected to
RULING: YES. WHEREFORE, Cabanes Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. is found guilty of gross
inform her about the CA ruling which he had duly received, thereby precluding her from availing
negligence in violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of
of any further remedies. As regards Cabanes’s suggested legal strategy to pursue the case at the
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
administrative level, suffice it to state that the same does not excuse him from failing to file a
six (6) MONTHS, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be
comment or an opposition to an appeal, or even, inform his client of any adverse resolution, as in this
case. Irrefragably, these are basic courses of action which every diligent lawyer is expected to make.

All told, it cannot be gainsaid that Cabanes was guilty of gross negligence, in violation of the above-
cited provisions of the Code.

As regards the appropriate penalty, several cases show that lawyers who have been held liable for
gross negligence for infractions similar to those of the Cabanes were suspended for a period of six (6)
months. In Aranda v. Elayda, a lawyer who failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite due
notice which resulted in the submission of the case for decision was found guilty of gross negligence
and hence, suspended for six (6) months. In Heirs of Tiburcio F. Ballesteros, Sr. v. Apiag, a lawyer
who did not file a pre-trial brief and was absent during the pre-trial conference was likewise
suspended for six (6) months. In Abiero v. Juanino, a lawyer who neglected a legal matter entrusted
to him by his client in breach of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code was also suspended for six (6)
months. Thus, consistent with existing jurisprudence, the Court finds it proper to impose the same
penalty against Cabanes and accordingly suspends him for a period of six (6) months.