G.R. No. A.C. No. 887; October 31, 1969
Avelina C. Aragon, petitioner, vs. Atty. Tomas B. Matol, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Avelina C. Aragon filed a petition for disbarment against respondent Atty. Tomas B. Matol on August 22, 1969. She alleged that she retained his services as counsel in a civil case for damages (Avelina Aragon v. Perfecto de la Rosa & Apolinario Acosta, Civil Case No. R-1040) before the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro. The court dismissed the case on October 21, 1964, and respondent received a copy of the dismissal order. Despite complainant’s periodic inquiries from 1964 to early 1969, respondent allegedly never informed her of the dismissal. She only learned of it on July 7, 1969, after securing a copy from the Clerk of Court. The petition prayed for investigation and possible removal of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys.
In his answer, respondent admitted being retained as counsel and receiving the dismissal order but denied failing to notify complainant. He asserted that upon receiving the order on October 26, 1964, he immediately sent a copy to complainant at her address (1230 Juan Luna Street, Tondo, Manila) via registered mail, along with a letter asking if she wished to file a motion for reconsideration. He attached as evidence the duplicate original of that letter and the registry return receipt (No. 7351) showing receipt by someone at her address on October 30, 1964. Respondent further claimed that even before the dismissal, on September 2, 1964, complainant visited his residence in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, and took possession of all case records, signing a receipt stating she would transfer the case to “one of my lawyers.” He also attached a motion for reconsideration filed on November 18, 1964, by complainant’s new counsel, Agustin V. Velante, and the subsequent denial of that motion on December 9, 1964. Copies of the answer and supporting documents were sent to complainant by registered mail on September 16, 1969, but she did not respond.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Tomas B. Matol committed malpractice by neglecting to inform complainant Avelina C. Aragon about the dismissal of her civil case, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The complaint is dismissed. The Supreme Court found the charge against respondent baseless. The evidence presented by respondent—including the duplicate letter, registry return receipt, complainant’s receipt for the case records, and the motion for reconsideration filed by her new counsel—demonstrated that complainant was notified of the dismissal and had even retrieved the case files to engage another lawyer. Complainant’s failure to rebut these documents indicated an inability to challenge their veracity. The Court concluded that the imputation of misconduct arose from either deficient memory or lack of respect for the truth. The Court admonished complainant for filing a reckless and unfounded accusation, emphasizing that such charges can unjustly damage a lawyer’s reputation and livelihood.