G.R. No. RTJ-98-1397. January 26, 1998.
Spouses Deogracias Villaluz Jr. & Belma Magana Villaluz, complainants, vs. Judge Wenifredo A. Armenta, Atty. Pio L. Villaluz, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 5628 before Branch 41 of the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte, presided by Judge Wenifredo Armenta (since retired), plaintiffs Conrado Bacuño, Juanito Domingo, and Ernesto Mojal sued spouses Deogracias and Belma Villaluz for an easement of right of way. On September 29, 1994, Judge Armenta rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant spouses to grant a 4-meter wide easement, remove encroaching structures, and pay moral damages. No appeal was taken from this decision, making it final and executory. On January 5, 1995, an administrative complaint for “Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment” was filed against Judge Armenta, prepared and filed by Atty. Pio L. Villaluz, counsel for the defendant spouses. Atty. Villaluz also filed a criminal complaint against the judge with the Provincial Prosecution Office based on substantially the same grounds. Judge Armenta denied the allegations, asserting his decision was lawful and suggesting the complaint was a substitute for a lost appeal due to counsel’s negligence. The Deputy Court Administrator recommended dismissing the administrative complaint for lack of merit and requiring Atty. Villaluz to explain why he should not be administratively sanctioned. The Court, in a September 6, 1995 Resolution, dismissed the complaint and ordered Atty. Villaluz to show cause why he should not be disciplined. Atty. Villaluz failed to comply promptly. The criminal complaint was also dismissed by the prosecutor. In his belated compliance, Atty. Villaluz claimed his services had been terminated by the complainants prior to the Court’s resolution. However, the complainants, the Villaluz spouses, filed a sworn comment alleging that Atty. Villaluz was not removed, that he neglected to inform them of the decision and allowed the appeal period to lapse, and that the filing of the complaints was his idea to absolve himself. Atty. Villaluz, in his comment, called the complainants liars and claimed they refused to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Pio L. Villaluz should be subject to disciplinary action for filing a baseless administrative complaint against Judge Armenta and for his conduct in relation thereto.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found that the administrative complaint was instituted by Atty. Villaluz as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, which was lost due to his unexplained and unjustified failure to appeal the adverse judgment. The Court did not accord credence to Atty. Villaluz’s explanations, finding them improbable and inconsistent. His conduct in the proceedings, including dilatory compliance with Court directives, further diminished his credibility. The Court found his failure to perfect an appeal to be inexcusable and demonstrative of negligence, constituting a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Accordingly, the Court resolved to suspend Atty. Pio L. Villaluz from the practice of law for six months effective upon receipt of the decision.