AC 5246; (May, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 5246 ; May 2, 2006
EDGAR O. PEREA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RUBEN L. ALMADRO, Respondent.
FACTS
This case is a contempt proceeding arising from a disbarment complaint filed by Edgar O. Perea against Atty. Ruben L. Almadro. Atty. Almadro engaged the Sua & Alambra Law Offices for his defense. In an Entry of Appearance dated November 20, 2000, signed by Atty. Alan Andres B. Alambra, it was stated that Almadro had not yet received a copy of the complaint and prayed for a copy to be furnished to him to file an answer. Complainant Perea countered that he had furnished copies via facsimile. The Court subsequently required Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alambra to show cause for alleged deliberate falsehood in their representation.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found both lawyers “less than honest and forthright” and imposed a fine of P2,000.00 each. In their defense, Atty. Alambra claimed he acted in good faith based on Atty. Almadro’s instruction that he never received the complaint, supported by a letter from Almadro dated November 9, 2000. Atty. Sua claimed no participation other than notarizing an affidavit.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Alan Andres B. Alambra is guilty of contempt and violation of his professional duties for making a false representation to the Court.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Alambra is guilty. The Court rejected the defense of good faith. While Almadro’s November 2000 letter stated non-receipt of the complaint, a review of Almadro’s own earlier motions for extension of time to file a comment, filed before engaging the law firm, revealed a critical inconsistency. Specifically, in one motion, Almadro stated he was “in the process of reviewing an initial draft” of his comment. This statement logically presupposed that he had received the complaint to draft a response against it.
This inconsistency should have alerted Atty. Alambra, as an officer of the court, to verify the truthfulness of his client’s claim instead of blindly relying upon it. His failure to exercise due diligence and candor towards the Court constituted a violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from doing any falsehood or misleading the Court. His personal relationship with Almadro as a law school classmate did not excuse this duty. Consequently, he is found guilty of contempt and neglect of duty. The fine of P2,000.00 with a stern warning is sustained. Atty. Kenton Sua is absolved based on the admission of his non-participation in the preparation of the offending pleading.