A.C. No. 10677 - RUDENIA L. TIBURDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BENIGNO M. PUNO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Benigno M. Puno be SUSPENDED from [the] practice of law for three (3) months for gross misconduct under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court in connection with the express mandate of the Lawyer's Oath of obeying the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities, herein Regional Trial Court of Quezon Branch 61 to file the Affidavit of Publication and of Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to timely and immediately apprise his client of the adverse decision regarding their case. [20] In Resolution No. XX-2012-583 dated 29 December 2012, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent violated Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Benigno M. Puno is hereby ADMONISHED with Warning that repetition of the same of [sic] similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. [21] On 22 March 2013, Atty. Puno filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the IBP failed to include his defense that he was no longer the counsel of Marquard when the RTC issued the orders. He alleged that he had no more obligation to interfere in the cases: xxx [T]he ground that the RECOMMENDATION upon which the said Resolution is based had OMITTED herein respondent's DEFENSE that he was already UNCEREMONIOUSLY REMOVED as counsel of the complainant in the several cases in one of which, the trial Court [sic] had dismissed one of the complainant's Complaint in which respondent had no more obligation to interfere in said cases in which he was already DISCHARGED from handling said case as early as April 13, 2009. [22] To support his argument, Atty. Puno attached the letter of Tiburdo dated 13 April 2009, [23] terminating his services as counsel for Marquard. Atty. Puno also attached his Position Paper [24] for CBD Case No. 10-2586 [25] where he argued, among others, that: (1) Tiburdo had no personal knowledge of the facts complained of and thus had no cause of action against him; and (2) he was already "unceremoniously, unjustifiably discharged or terminated, in an uncivilized way" before the Civil Case was dismissed. On 2 May 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP denied the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Puno and adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner suspending him from the practice of law for three (3) months: RESOLVED, to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, finding gross