l\.

epublic of tbe ~bilippines

~upreme <!Court
Jmanila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated December 9, 2020 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12886 (Nenita Marilao v. Atty. Zosimo Bedrijo

Argawanon). - This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint
for Disbarment 1 filed by Nenita F. Marilao (complainant) against
Atty. Zosimo Bedrijo Argawanon (respondent) for his gross
negligence and irresponsible inaction in handling their case in
violation of several Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly: Canons 1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 and Rules
1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02 and 12.04. 2

According to complaint, respondent was engaged by

complainant as their counsel in an unlawful detainer case in S.C.A.
Case No. 026-PN pending before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Palompon, Leyte. On December 10, 2012, MTC issued a Decision
against complainant and the other defendants of the case. As a result,
they filed an appeal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Palompon, Leyte. 3

On April 29, 2013, respondent and the counsel of the opposing

party were directed by the R TC to file their respective appeal
memorandum within 15 days from receipt of the order. Based from
the records, respondent received the said order on May 30, 2013 as
evidenced by a registry return receipt. 4

However, respondent failed to comply with the RTC's order.

Thus, on February 5, 2014, the RTC issued another Order dismissing
the appeal pursuant to Section 7(b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court

- over - eight (8) pages ...

104

Rollo, pp. 2-7.

Id. at 4-5.
Id. at 2-3.
Id. at 3.
RESOLUTION 2 A.C. No. 12886
December 9, 2020

for failure of the appellant to file a memorandum. Consequently, the

adverse decision of the MTC became final and executory. 5

On October 5, 2016, the MTC issued a Special Order of

Demolition6 against complainant and the other defendants of the case
pursuant to its Decision dated December 10, 2012, which granted the
unlawful detainer case in favor of the opposing party. Thus,
complainant and the other defendants of the case were evicted from
their respective homes, to their detriment and damage. 7

Complainant contends that it was through the gross negligence

and irresponsible non-performance of respondent that caused the
dismissal of their appeal. By reason of his gross negligence,
complainant and the other defendants of the case were evicted. 8

In a Memorandum9 dated April 5, 2017 the Integrated Bar of

the Philippines (IBP) endorsed the Complaint to its Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD) for investigation, report and recommendation.10

In an Order11 dated March 26, 2018, the Director for Bar

Discipline directed respondent to submit his Answer to the Complaint
within 15 days from the receipt thereof. 12

Respondent requested for motion for extension of time to file

his Answer twice. 13 Thus, it was only on August 14, 2018 that he was
able to file his Answer. 14 In his Answer, respondent averred that it
was not his intention to not comply with the RTC Order dated April
29, 2013 requiring the parties to submit their respective appeal
memorandum. He explained that the failure to submit was due to the
fault of his nephew who immediately placed the RTC Order inside the
case folder thereby, disabling him to know that they have received the
same. 15

A mandatory conference was first held on June 23, 2018 but it

was reset to August 13, 2018. 16 However, due to the failure of the

- over -
104

Id.
6 Id. at 11-15.
Id. at 3.
Id. at 3-4.
9
Id. at 18.
10
Id.
II Id.at 19.
12
Id.
13 Id. at 23, 37.
14
Id. at 41-42.
15
Id. at 41.
16 Id. at 36.
RESOLUTION 3 A.C. No. 12886
December 9, 2020

complainant to appear, the mandatory conference was terminated and

the parties were directed to submit their respective position papers.17
Only complainant submitted her position paper on September 18,
2018. 18

The Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD

In his Report and Recommendation, 19 Investigating

Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera found that respondent is
guilty of inexcusable negligence in handling the appeal of
complainant before the RTC. 20

The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent's

defense is weak and flimsy to overcome the evidence presented by
complainant. Respondent did not dispute that he failed to file the
appeal memorandum before the RTC. He averred that he did not
intend to ignore the Order of the RTC but his failure to file the appeal
memorandum was due to the fact that his nephew failed to inform him
of the receipt of the aforementioned Order of the RTC.21

The Investigating Commissioner ruled that shifting the blame

for respondent's inexcusable neglect to his nephew cannot be given
credence. He took note of the fact that respondent did not file any
motion for extension to file the appeal memorandum. In fact,
respondent did not file any pleading to contest the dismissal of the
appeal and let nine months lapse until the complainant's received the
Special Order of Demolition from the MTC. Such act constituted
abandonment of his client's case in violation of Canon 18 and Rules
22
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Citing similar administrative rulings of the Court, the

Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be found
administratively liable for his inexcusable neglect and be suspended
for six months with a stem warning that similar infractions in the
future shall be dealt with more severely. 23

- over -
104

17 Id. at 48.
18 Id. at 49-53.
19 Id. at 61-72.
20
Id. at 71.
21 Id. at 69 .
22 Id.
23 Id. at 71.
RESOLUTION 4 A.C. No. 12886
December 9, 2020

In a Resolution24 dated June 18, 2019, the IBP Board of

Governors resolved to adopt and approve the findings of fact of the
Investigating Commissioner to impose upon respondent the penalty of
suspension for six months from the practice of law with a stem
warning that a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely. 25

Ruling of the Court

After a review of the records of the case, the Court adopts the
findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

The Court finds respondent guilty of violating not only Canon

18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04, but also of Canons 17 and 19 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provide:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of

his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with

competence and diligence.

xxxx

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client

informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.

CANON 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client

with zeal within the bounds of the law.

Respondent does not dispute that he was engaged as counsel by

the complainant in the unlawful detainer case before MTC of
Palompon, Leyte. 26 It is also not disputed that the above-mentioned
case was decided against complainant and the other defendants and
the same was appealed before the RTC. However, respondent, as
counsel of complainant, failed to file the appeal memorandum
27
required by the RTC thereby resulting to the dismissal of the appeal.

- over -
104

24 Id. at 60.
25
Id.
26 Id. at 41.
27 Id. at 2-3.
RESOLUTION 5 A.C. No. 12886
December 9, 2020

Further, respondent has not filed anything to remedy the

dismissal of the appeal, to the prejudice and detriment of complainant
and the other defendants in the case. As a result thereof, the MTC
decision attained finality for failure of the defendants to perfect an
appeal and a Special Order of Demolition was later on issued by the
MTC which resulted to the eviction of the complainant from their
home. 28

As duly noted by the Investigating Commissioner, nine months

have lapsed from the dismissal of the appeal to the issuance of the
Special Order of Demolition and no action has been done by
respondent as counsel of complainant.29 Such lack of action on the
part of respondent is tantamount to gross and inexcusable negligence
violative of the Canons and Rules under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

In a number of cases, the Court ruled that a lawyer's failure to

file a mandatory pleading before the Court constitutes gross
negligence which violates his duty to his clients. In the case of In Re:
Atty Briones, 30 the counsel failed to submit the required brief within
the reglementary period which resulted to the continued incarceration
of the client. In Mariveles v. Mallari, 31 the lawyer, despite requesting
for numerous extension of time, failed to file the Appellant's Brief to
32
the prejudice of the client. In the case of Figueras v. Jimenez, the
counsel likewise failed to file the client's Appellant's Brief with note
from the Court of Appeals that the motion for extension of time to file
the brief was filed 95 days late from the time that it should have been
filed. In the case of Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo, 33 the lawyer
failed to file the Appellant's Brief which resulted to the dismissal of
the appeal of his client. More similar to the case at hand is the case of
Enriquez v. Lavadia wherein the counsel, Atty. Lavadia, failed to file
the appeal memorandum after more than 71 days from the
reglementary period.

As held in Solidon v. Macalalad:

All these rulings drive home to the fiduciary

nature of a lawyer's duty to his client once an
engagement for legal services is accepted. A lawyer

- over -
104

28
Id. at 3.
29 Id. at 69.
30 415 Phil. 203 (2001 ).
31 AM. No. 3294, February 1993.
32 729 Phil. IO I (2014).
33 752 Phil 473 (2015).
 RESOLUTION 6 A.C. No. 12886
December 9, 2020

so engaged to represent a client bears the

responsibility of protecting the latter's interest
with utmost diligence. The lawyer bears the duty to
serve his client with competence and diligence, and
to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds
of the law, the interest of his or her
client. Accordingly, competence, not only in the
knowledge of law, but also in the management of
the cases by giving these cases appropriate attention
and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer. 34

As culled from the records, respondent failed to comply with

the fiduciary duty expected of him by his client. His failure to file the
appeal memorandum which resulted to the dismissal of the appeal is
tantamount to gross negligence. His inaction for nine (9) months from
the dismissal of the appeal to the issuance of the Special Order of
Demolition constitutes abandonment of his client's cause.
Complainant, along with the other defendants of the case, was evicted
from their home because of the adverse ruling they received from the
MTC. Complainant was not able to fully litigate the merits of their
case because of a technical procedure resulting to the dismissal of
their appeal.

Respondent must remember that the relationship between an

attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would
be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required
degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency,
and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for
free. 35

Furthermore, respondent is duty bound to uphold and safeguard

the interests of his clients. As the counsel of the complainant and the
other defendants of the case, respondent is expected to monitor the
progress of said complainant's case and is obligated to exert all efforts
to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect the
cause espoused by them. Regrettably, respondent failed to fulfill all
these duties expected of him.

As to the proper penalty, the Court affirms the penalty of

suspension from the practice of law for six months imposed by the
IBP Board of Governors. Several cases show that lawyers who have

- over -
104
34
Solidon v. Maca/alad, A.C. No. 8158, February 24, 20 10.
35
Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo, A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015.
RESOLUTION 7 A.C. No. 12886
December 9, 2020

been held liable for gross negligence for infractions similar to those of
respondent were suspended for a period of six months.

In Heirs ofBallesteros, Sr. v. Apiag,36 a lawyer who did not file

a pre-trial brief and was absent during the pre-trial conference was
likewise suspended for six months. In Abiero v. Juanino, 37 a lawyer
who neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his client in breach
of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code was also suspended for six months.
In Aranda v. Elayda,38 a lawyer who failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing despite due notice which resulted in the submission of the
case for decision was found guilty of gross negligence and hence,
suspended for six months. In Hernandez v. Padilla,39 a lawyer who
failed to file the proper pleading and comment to the Motion to
Dismiss was found negligent and thus, suspended for six months.
Lastly, in Sps. Warriner v. Dublin ,40 a lawyer who deliberately failed
to submit the formal offer of evidence which resulted to the dismissal
of the case of his client and for disobeying and disregarding the
directives of the IBP and the Court was suspended for six months.

Thus, consistent with existing jurisprudence, the Court finds it

proper to impose the same penalty against respondent and accordingly
suspends him for a period of six months.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution dated

June 18, 2019 of the IBP Board of Governors approving and adopting
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is
hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Zosimo Bedrijo
Argawanon is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of SIX (6) MONTHS with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent Atty.

Zosimo Bedrijo Argawanon' s personal record with the Office of the
Bar Confidant and be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and to all the courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

- over -
104

36 508 Phil 11 3 (2005).

37 492 Phil. 149 (2005).
38 653 Phil. 1 (20 I 0).
39 688 Phil. 329 (2012).
40 721 Phil. 277 (201 3).
RESOLUTION 8 A.C. No. 12886
December 9, 2020

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

LIBRADA C. BUENA
Division Clerk of Cou~.,i~

by: -
~
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
104

Ms. Nenita F. Marilao Atty. Zosimo Bedrijo Argawanon

Complainant Respondent
Brgy. San Isidro, Palompon No. 4, Oliva-Perez (across Teo-Fel
6538 Leyte -Pension), Junquera Extension
Brgy. San Antonio, 6000 Cebu City
- and/or -
Room 204, 2F Goodwill Building
Jones Avenue, Brgy, Sam bag -1
6000 Cebu City

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

1605 Pasig City
(For circulation of the Resolution to all
chapters of the IBP)

Office of the Bar Confidant (x)

Supreme Court

Office of the Court Administrator (x)

Supreme Court

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M. I .
No. 12-7-1-SC) •~

UR