AC 554; (January, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 554; January 3, 1969
BRIGIDO TOQUIB, complainant, vs. ATTY. VALERIANO TOMOL, JR., respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Valeriano Tomol, Jr. was the counsel for complainant’s father, Hermogenes Toquib, the defendant in a civil case for recovery of possession of land. After the plaintiffs closed their evidence, respondent moved for and was granted permission to take the deposition of the elderly defendant. On the scheduled date, the defendant failed to appear, and the judge denied respondent’s motion for postponement. The court later issued an order considering the case submitted for decision due to the defendant’s failure to attend the deposition and subsequently rendered judgment against the defendant. Between June and August 1961, complainant inquired several times about the case’s status, and respondent consistently advised him to wait for a notice of hearing. In June 1962, a writ of execution was served. Complainant then engaged a new lawyer, Atty. Romeo Gomez, who discovered that a copy of the adverse decision had been received on June 7, 1961, by Manuel Labrador, whom respondent had authorized to receive his mail. Respondent, in a letter to Atty. Gomez, claimed he had not received the decision and suggested filing an action for annulment as the period for appeal had lapsed. An administrative complaint was filed. Respondent failed to file his answer as required by the Court’s resolution.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Atty. Valeriano Tomol, Jr. failed to live up to his lawyer’s oath and the standards of the legal profession through negligence and failure to protect his client’s interests.
RULING
Yes, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. The Court found respondent negligent on two grounds. First, after the failed deposition, he took no action between December 22, 1960, and May 19, 1961, to secure another date or prevent the case from being submitted for decision, and he misled his client by advising him to wait for a hearing notice despite knowing the case’s status. Second, he failed to act upon the adverse decision received on his behalf on June 7, 1961, allowing the appeal period to lapse without notifying his client or seeking relief from the judgment. His conduct demonstrated gross negligence and insensibility to his client’s misfortune, falling far below the standard of entire devotion to the client’s interest required by Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.