A.C. No. 10709, August 23, 2022
Calixtro P. Calisay, Complainant, vs. Atty. Toradio R. Esplana and Atty. Mary Grace A. Checa-Hinojosa, Respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Calixtro P. Calisay engaged Atty. Toradio R. Esplana to represent him in an unlawful detainer case. Respondent Esplana filed the Answer eight days late, leading the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to expunge it from the records and subsequently rule against the complainant. On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC, complainant hired Atty. Mary Grace A. Checa-Hinojosa. She elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Complainant alleged that respondent Checa-Hinojosa received the CA resolution denying the motion for reconsideration on September 12, 2013, but informed him only on November 12, 2013. This delay caused the period to appeal to the Supreme Court to lapse, rendering the CA decision final and depriving complainant of a final recourse. The complaint led to an investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which found both respondents liable for negligence.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Atty. Toradio R. Esplana and Atty. Mary Grace A. Checa-Hinojosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be disciplined.
RULING
Yes, both respondents were found guilty of professional negligence, but with differing penalties. The Supreme Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty of reprimand for both. The Court held that under the amended Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, it retains the ultimate power to impose disciplinary action, and the IBP’s recommendations are merely advisory, subject to judicial review regardless of whether a petition for review is filed.
The Court found respondent Esplana violated Rule 18.03 of the CPR for his failure to exercise due diligence, specifically by filing the Answer beyond the reglementary period, which directly prejudiced his client’s case. Considering it was his first offense and he appeared to have acted in good faith, the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning was deemed appropriate.
For respondent Checa-Hinojosa, the Court found her guilty of violating both Rules 18.03 and 18.04. Her failure to promptly inform her client of the adverse CA resolution, which resulted in the loss of the right to appeal, constituted gross negligence. This failure to keep the client reasonably informed and to protect his interests warranted a more severe sanction. Consequently, she was suspended from the practice of law for one month with a stern warning. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty of diligence includes timely communication of case developments, as the failure to do so undermines the administration of justice and breaches the trust inherent in the attorney-client relationship.