A.M. No. 1199 March 18, 1983
LEONCIO FLORES and GLORIA PERALTA FLORES, complainants vs. ATTY. VICENTE V. DUQUE, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Leoncio and Gloria Flores filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against their counsel, Atty. Vicente V. Duque. They alleged that the respondent lawyer failed to notify them of a hearing scheduled for July 1, 1971, and also failed to appear at said hearing. Due to the absence of both the parties and their counsel, the trial court dismissed their case for consolidation of ownership. The complainants contended that this negligence caused them prejudice.
In his answer, respondent denied the allegations. He explained that he was initially engaged by the complainants’ father to file the case based on a deed of sale with a right to repurchase. However, after filing the complaint, he discovered that the complainants were not in possession of the land, did not enjoy its fruits, and the repurchase price was grossly inadequate, making the action legally untenable. Regarding the hearing, respondent asserted that he did notify the complainants. He claimed they later informed him that they had assigned their rights to a third party, Soledad dela Cruz, and that the original debtor, Catalina Acoba, had already settled the obligation by paying dela Cruz. According to respondent, the complainants instructed him to forget the case and his fees, suggesting that the complaint be dismissed. Consequently, he found it unnecessary to attend the July 1 hearing, expecting the court to dismiss the case for lack of interest to prosecute, thereby avoiding a potential award of damages against his clients.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Vicente V. Duque should be held administratively liable for negligence in handling his clients’ case, specifically for failing to notify them of a hearing and for failing to appear thereat.

RULING

The Court, adopting the findings and recommendation of the Solicitor General after investigation, dismissed the administrative case but admonished the respondent. The investigation found the respondent’s version more credible. Evidence showed that the original title and loan documents were already in the possession of Catalina Acoba, indicating she had paid the loan to the assignee, Soledad dela Cruz. This corroborated respondent’s claim that the obligation had been extinguished and the complainants had lost interest in the case. The Court agreed that respondent did notify his clients of the hearing and that they were aware of the dismissal.
However, the Court qualified its exoneration. While the evidence did not establish gross negligence warranting disbarment or suspension, the Court found that respondent exercised poor judgment. His chosen method of allowing the case to be dismissed for non-appearance, instead of formally notifying the court of his clients’ loss of interest or filing a motion to dismiss, was incorrect and improper. This lapse, though not grave enough for severe disciplinary action, demonstrated a lack of due care. Applying the principle from Tionko v. Learned that disbarment requires a clear preponderance of evidence and that the attorney is presumed innocent, the Court dismissed the complaint. Nevertheless, respondent was admonished to exercise greater care and prudence in fulfilling his duties as an officer of the court in the future.