AC 4306; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. 4306. March 28, 2007. REMBERTO C. KARA-AN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. REYNALDO A. PINEDA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Remberto C. Kara-an filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Pineda for gross misconduct. The complaint stemmed from Atty. Pineda’s actions as counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. 94-2078 for Injunction and Damages before the Makati RTC. After moving to reset the hearing from July 13 to July 20, 1994, and manifesting he was preparing a written opposition, Atty. Pineda appeared on July 20 but submitted no answer, instead agreeing to reset the hearing to August 1, 1994.
On August 1, 1994, Atty. Pineda failed to appear in court, prompting the judge to defer the hearing. Consequently, the complainant filed a motion for contempt and, subsequently, this administrative complaint for disbarment. The complainant alleged the respondent violated his lawyer’s oath by failing to support the administration of justice, respect the courts, and avoid delaying a cause. The respondent countered that the complaint was a form of harassment and premature, as the contempt motion was still pending.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Pineda should be disbarred for his failure to appear at a scheduled hearing and his subsequent failure to attend some hearings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
RULING
The Supreme Court adopted the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors and denied the prayer for disbarment but reprimanded the respondent. The Court held that disbarment, being the most severe sanction, requires clear and convincing proof of misconduct affecting the lawyer’s moral character. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the respondent’s single failure to appear at the August 1, 1994, hearing was willful, oppressive, or motivated by corrupt intent to obstruct justice, especially as this appeared to be his first offense.
However, the Court found that the respondent fell short of his professional duties. His unexplained absence from the court hearing and his subsequent failures to appear at several IBP-CBD hearings contributed to the delay of the proceedings, violating his duty under Canon 12, Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Thus, while disbarment was not warranted, a reprimand with a stern warning was appropriate. The respondent was reprimanded and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.