A.C. No. 10753 (Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2703) - ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, on motion of the petitioners through counsel, the Court resolved to consider the instant petition for Relief from Judgment docketed as SCA Case No. 09-015 entitled Ranier [sic] B. Fineza and Teodora B. Fineza versus Pablo B. Francisco filed on July 8, 2009 and raffled to this court on July 13, 2009 as WITHDRAWN, and this case is hereby DISMISSED. [85] (Emphasis supplied) Respondent's attempts to rectify are further evidence that what he didfile a Petition for Relief docketed as a different case before a different trial courtwas wrong in the first place. [86] Furthermore, this court finds respondent guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Canon 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Respondent's explanation that he was on vacation is not sufficient. Being the lawyer who filed the Motion for Reconsideration, he should have been prepared for the possibility that his Motion would be acted upon by the trial court during the time that he was on vacation. In addition, he does not deny that his office, through his staff, received by registered mail a copy of the trial court's Order on April 3, 2009. Respondent argues that he instructed his staff to inform his clients of court processes and to refer legal matters to Atty. Leonardo C. Aseoche or Atty. Baltazar O. Abasolo. [87] However, respondent did not present evidence to support his argument. Respondent further argues that he was not negligent and explained that in the case docketed as Civil Case 384-B for Quieting of Title with Prayer for Restraining Order/Injunction, he successfully prevented the demolition of the Finezas' family home. [88] Respondent may not have been negligent in handling Civil Case No. 384-B, but he was negligent in handling SCA No. 08-018. When he allegedly informed the Finezas of the trial court's Order, he should have immediately discussed the matter with his clients. The records of this case show that he did not consult his clients on what legal remedies they would like to avail themselves of after the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent attended the hearing on the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution, and that it was allegedly the Finezas, on their own, who filed the Petition for Relief from Judgment. Respondent claims that he merely assisted the Finezas in filing the Petition for Relief, but was not representing them. [89] He argues that he could not represent the Finezas because "he has no personal knowledge as to when the Fineza[s] learned or had knowledge of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration." [90] Respondent also seems to have forgotten the general rule that notice to counsel is also notice to client. Thus, when his office received a copy of the trial co