G.R. No. L-24114 June 30, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO IN L-24114, PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION and UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ELPIDIO TIBURCIO, MARCELINO TIBURCIO, ET AL.

FACTS

On October 10, 1969, Atty. Clemente M. Soriano filed an “Appearance” with the Supreme Court, entering himself as “chief counsel of record” for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al. in the case of People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation and University of the Philippines vs. Mencias, Tiburcio, et al. (G.R. No. L-24114). This act was committed one year and eight months after the decision in the case had become final. Atty. Soriano explained that he was retained by Marcelino Tiburcio during the first week of October 1969 for two cases: the terminated case (L-24114) and another pending case entitled “Varsity Hills vs. Hon. Herminio C. Mariano, etc., et al.” (L-30546). He claimed he was informed by his client that the present case was still pending and that he also relied on the assurance of a mutual acquaintance, Atty. Antonio J. Dalangpan. Atty. Soriano prepared a letter-contract dated October 8, 1969, agreeing to render professional services for a contingent fee of 143.33 hectares of land out of the 430 hectares involved in the two cases. The Supreme Court required him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Clemente M. Soriano should be subject to disciplinary action for entering an appearance as counsel in a case that had long been terminated by a final judgment.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Clemente M. Soriano is guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. The Supreme Court found that his entry of appearance in a sealed and terminated case was an unmitigated absurdity, an unwarranted annoyance to the court, and a sore deviation from normal judicial processes. The Court noted several failures on his part: 1) He did not obtain the conformity of or give notice to the former counsel of record, Atty. Nemesio Diaz, whom he sought to supplant as “chief counsel.” 2) He did not communicate with Atty. Bonifacio T. Doria, his co-counsel in the related Varsity Hills case, who would have known the status of the terminated case. 3) He failed to exercise reasonable care and vigilance by not verifying the true status of the case with the Supreme Court’s records section, which was easily accessible, despite having the opportunity and the duty to do so. 4) He relied on an alleged assurance from Atty. Dalangpan, which the latter categorically denied. The Court emphasized that such negligence detracts from the faith accorded to final judgments. However, in view of Atty. Soriano’s candor in owning his mistake and his apology to the Court, he was severely censured instead of suspended. He was ordered to forthwith withdraw his appearance in the case and was warned that any future similar act would be met with heavier disciplinary sanction. A copy of the resolution was ordered attached to his personal record in the Bar Division of the Supreme Court.