G.R. No. A.M. No. 554 March 25, 1970
BRIGIDO TOQUIB, complainant, vs. ATTY. VALERIANO TOMOL, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Brigido Toquib, on behalf of his father Hermogenes Toquib, sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Valeriano Tomol, Jr. The complaint arose from respondent’s handling of Civil Case No. R-958, an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land filed against Hermogenes Toquib in the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte. Respondent and his law partner agreed to handle the defense. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, respondent orally moved to take the deposition of the elderly defendant in Hinunangan, which was granted and set for December 22, 1960. On that date, respondent traveled to Hinunangan, but the defendant did not appear. The Justice of the Peace denied respondent’s motion for postponement. The Court of First Instance subsequently considered the case submitted for decision due to the defendant’s failure to attend the deposition and later rendered an adverse judgment. Complainant alleged respondent failed to notify him or his father of the deposition setting and of the adverse decision, causing the loss of the right to present evidence and to appeal. Respondent claimed he had notified complainant of the deposition date in court and that he did not receive a copy of the decision, as it was received by a certain Manuel Labrador authorized to receive his mail.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Valeriano Tomol, Jr. is guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties as counsel, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Court found respondent guilty of negligence, but modified the original penalty. The Court concurred with the Solicitor General’s finding that respondent was not totally blameless. While it was credible that respondent informed complainant of the deposition date, his subsequent inaction after the denial of the postponement—specifically, his failure to ask the Court of First Instance for another date to take the deposition—evinced neglect in protecting his client’s interest. Regarding the failure to notify the client of the adverse decision, the Court found the evidence debatable and noted no malicious motive. Consequently, the Court held respondent guilty only of negligence for his inaction following the aborted deposition. The original decision suspending him for one year was modified. Respondent was reprimanded with a warning that any similar misconduct would be punished more drastically. The Court also issued a resolution on April 21, 1970, correcting clerical errors in the decision regarding the names of the parties.