G.R. No. 2239

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant William Gitt was sued by Jose Arnaiz. Defendants-appellees Moore & Hixson, as Gitt’s retained lawyers, filed a sworn motion in that case seeking to annul the appointment of a receiver and to dismiss the complaint, with a prayer for costs and other just relief. They did not file a separate document formally titled an “answer.” Consequently, the court in the Arnaiz case declared Gitt in default for failure to answer and rendered a judgment against him, which he was compelled to pay. Gitt then filed this action for damages against Moore & Hixson, alleging professional negligence for their failure to file an answer, which resulted in the default judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants-appellees (Moore & Hixson) are liable for professional negligence for failing to file an answer, given that the document they filed on behalf of Gitt in the prior case was captioned as a “motion” but contained denials and defenses to the complaint.

RULING:
No. The defendants-appellees are not liable for professional negligence. The Court held that the document filed, while labeled a motion, contained a complete denial and defense to the allegations in the complaint and a prayer for dismissal appropriate for an answer. The legal question of whether this document constituted a sufficient answer was not so clear and free from doubt that a lawyer of ordinary skill could be deemed negligent for considering it as such. Lawyers cannot be held liable for a mistaken judgment on a doubtful question of law. Since the document could arguably be treated as an answer, the alleged negligence in failing to file a separate answer was not established. The judgment of the lower court in favor of the defendants was affirmed.