A.C. No. 887 - OCTOBER 1969 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 887October 31, 1969 Avelina C. Aragon vs. Tomas B. Matol G.R. No. L-19617October 31, 1969 University of the Philippines Board of Regents, et al. vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-20267October 31, 1969 Gaw Lam, etc., et al. vs. Agapito Conchu G.R. No. L-22197October 31, 1969 Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-22633October 31, 1969 Julian B. Dacanay vs. Carmelino G. Alvendia, et al. G.R. No. L-23069October 31, 1969 Teofila Ramos, et al. vs. Felicisimo Raymundo, et al. G.R. No. L-23256October 31, 1969 Jose Ma. Gonzales vs. Victory Labor Union, et al. G.R. No. L-23359October 31, 1969 Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, et al. G.R. No. L-23464October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Gavino A. Dorado G.R. No. L-23580October 31, 1969 Bacolod-Murcia Planters' Association, Inc., et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-23733October 31, 1969 Herminio L. Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. G.R. No. L-23833October 31, 1969 Jose Garrido vs. Cayetano Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-24735October 31, 1969 Consolacion P. Mangila vs. Jose T. Lantin, et al. G.R. No. L-24883October 31, 1969 Machuca Tile Co., Inc. vs. Social Security System G.R. No. L-25004October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Teofilo Talaboc, Jr. G.R. No. L-25033October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Braulio Pamittan, et al. G.R. No. L-25177October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Layson, et al. G.R. No. L-25413October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Onofre Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-25481October 31, 1969 Geronimo Caguiat, et al. vs. Guillermo E. Torres, et al. G.R. No. L-25659October 31, 1969 Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Josefa Aguirre de Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-26002October 31, 1969 Abelardo Bautista, et al. vs. Federico O. Borromeo, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-26059October 31, 1969 Dominador S. Jamilano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-26098October 31, 1969 Jose Laurel, et al. vs. Onofre Sison Abalos, et al. G.R. No. L-26146October 31, 1969 Social Security System vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-26173October 31, 1969 Operators, Inc. vs. Ricardo Cacatian, et al. G.R. No. L-26240October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Gondayao, et al. G.R. No. L-26244October 31, 1969 In Re: Chan Ho Lay. Chan Ho Lay vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-26382October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo L. Fontanilla G.R. No. L-26406October 31, 1969 Automotive Parts & Equipment Co., Inc. vs. Jose B. Lingad, et al. G.R. No. L-26531October 31, 1969 Phoenix Assurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-26718October 31, 1969 Elite Shirt Factory, Inc. vs. W. L. Cornejo, et al. G.R. No. L-26775October 31, 1969 Mamerto Iriola vs. Silverio Felices G.R. No. L-27033October 31, 1969 Polytrade Corporation vs. Victoriano Blanco G.R. No. L-27352October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Ablaza G.R. No. L-27401October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Diego Balondo G.R. No. L-27419October 31, 1969 Guillermo F. Garcia, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-27537October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Garcia Sy G.R. No. L-27861October 31, 1969 Province of Pangasinan vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, et al. G.R. No. L-28129October 31, 1969 Elias Valcorza vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-28591October 31, 1969 Mariano Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-29210October 31, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Freddie Braña G.R. No. L-30694October 31, 1969 Sterling Investment Corp. vs. V. M. Ruiz G.R. No. L-30774October 31, 1969 Teodora B. De La Cruz vs. Teodulo G. Gabor, et al. G.R. No. L-18519October 30, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Macabato Ali G.R. No. L-20274October 30, 1969 Eloy Miguel, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-21740October 30, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Gallora G.R. No. L-22245October 30, 1969 Juan Parreño vs. Ireneo Ganancial G.R. No. L-22366October 30, 1969 Rodolfo Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22662October 30, 1969 Pedro C. Tiangco, et al. vs. Hercules Iron Mines Development, et al. G.R. No. L-23694October 30, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Dolores Britos Aglibut G.R. No. L-25134October 30, 1969 City of Bacolod vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. G.R. No. L-26270October 30, 1969 Bonifacia Mateo, et al. vs. Gervasio Lagua, et al. G.R. No. L-27335October 28, 1969 Baltazar Saludares, et al. vs. Jose Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-27412October 28, 1969 Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-27755October 4, 1969 Arsenio Reyes vs. Leonardo Manas, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Avelina C. Aragon vs. Tomas B. Matol University of the Philippines Board of Regents, et al. vs. Auditor General, et al. Gaw Lam, etc., et al. vs. Agapito Conchu Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Auditor General, et al. Julian B. Dacanay vs. Carmelino G. Alvendia, et al. Teofila Ramos, et al. vs. Felicisimo Raymundo, et al. Jose Ma. Gonzales vs. Victory Labor Union, et al. Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gavino A. Dorado Bacolod-Murcia Planters' Association, Inc., et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. Herminio L. Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. Jose Garrido vs. Cayetano Enriquez, et al. Consolacion P. Mangila vs. Jose T. Lantin, et al. Machuca Tile Co., Inc. vs. Social Security System People of the Philippines vs. Teofilo Talaboc, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Braulio Pamittan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Layson, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Onofre Santos, et al. Geronimo Caguiat, et al. vs. Guillermo E. Torres, et al. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Josefa Aguirre de Garcia, et al. Abelardo Bautista, et al. vs. Federico O. Borromeo, Inc., et al. Dominador S. Jamilano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jose Laurel, et al. vs. Onofre Sison Abalos, et al. Social Security System vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Operators, Inc. vs. Ricardo Cacatian, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Gondayao, et al. In Re: Chan Ho Lay. Chan Ho Lay vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo L. Fontanilla Automotive Parts & Equipment Co., Inc. vs. Jose B. Lingad, et al. Phoenix Assurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Elite Shirt Factory, Inc. vs. W. L. Cornejo, et al. Mamerto Iriola vs. Silverio Felices Polytrade Corporation vs. Victoriano Blanco People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Ablaza People of the Philippines vs. Diego Balondo Guillermo F. Garcia, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Garcia Sy Province of Pangasinan vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, et al. Elias Valcorza vs. People of the Philippines Mariano Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Freddie Braña Sterling Investment Corp. vs. V. M. Ruiz Teodora B. De La Cruz vs. Teodulo G. Gabor, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Macabato Ali Eloy Miguel, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Gallora Juan Parreño vs. Ireneo Ganancial Rodolfo Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pedro C. Tiangco, et al. vs. Hercules Iron Mines Development, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dolores Britos Aglibut City of Bacolod vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. Bonifacia Mateo, et al. vs. Gervasio Lagua, et al. Baltazar Saludares, et al. vs. Jose Martinez, et al. Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Arsenio Reyes vs. Leonardo Manas, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 887 October 31, 1969
AVELINA C. ARAGON,petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. TOMAS B. MATOL,respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
FERNANDO,J.:
No greater responsibility devolves upon a member of the bar than that of living up to its high and exacting standards. Failure on his part to do so, when called to our attention and upon a showing that such indeed was the case, entails consequences far from pleasant. He is, as is but just and proper, held accountable; whatever disciplinary measure is warranted is imposed. At the same time, while this Court carefully looks into and scrutinizes every complaint for misconduct, it never displays any hesitancy to clear the respondent before it from any unjustified charge or undeserved imputation. That is the least that can be done to remedy matters. The stain on his good name must be removed, the blot on his record erased. So justice requires. So it must be in this proceeding against respondent Tomas B. Matol, a member of the Philippine Bar.
In the petition for disbarment filed by the complainant, Avelina C. Aragon, on August 22, 1969, it was alleged that she retained his services as her counsel in a civil case for damages, entitled Avelina Aragon v. Perfecto de la Rosa & Apolinario Acosta,1filed with the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro; that on October 21, 1964, such a court promulgated an order dismissing the above case, a copy of which order was received by respondent as such counsel; that, notwithstanding the lapse of time from the receipt of such order of dismissal, complainant allegedly even periodically inquiring from respondent Matol about the status of her case from 1964 to the early part of 1969, she was never informed thereof; that on July 7, 1969, she did secure a copy of such order of dismissal from the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro; that there was an admission by respondent of his having received a copy of the 1964 order and a failure to advance a reasonable explanation for such omission to inform her. The petition prayed for the investigation, "and, if the evidence warrants, that he be removed from the Roll of Attorneys."2
Respondent Tomas B. Matol having been required to answer by virtue of our resolution of August 29, 1969, did fully file the same on September 9 of this year. After admitting that he is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examination and having been admitted in the practice of law in 1962, and that his services were in fact retained as counsel for complainant in the case for damages then pending with the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro which was dismissed by the order of October 21, 1964, as alleged in the petition, he denied the truth of the imputation that he failed to notify complainant of such dismissal.
What happened, according to him, was that a copy of such order was immediately sent, upon the receipt thereof, to petitioner at 1230 Juan Luna Street, Tondo, Manila, by registered mail, attaching to his answer the duplicate original of his letter to complainant wherein he informed her that he received, on the morning of October 26, 1964, such an order, and that he was sending a copy to her asking her at the same time whether she would like to have him take the steps for the reconsideration thereof, likewise attaching as part of his answer the registry receipt return card No. 7351 which would indicate that either petitioner or someone in her house did receive such letter on October 30, 1964.3He further stated that even before such promulgation of the order of dismissal of October 21, 1964, complainant did see his wife at their residence in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, respondent being at the time in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro for the purpose of getting all the records of such case, alleging that she would seek the legal assistance of "one of her lawyers." His wife's request to wait for him not being heeded by complainant, she did deliver to her all of such records of that particular case, complainant issuing a receipt, attached to the answer, of the following tenor: "I [hereby] certify that I received from Atty. Tomas B. Matol the records of Civil Case No. 1040 Re:Castillo vs. De la Rosafor transfer to one of my lawyers."4It was dated September 2, 1964 with the place, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, likewise noted. It was duly signed Avelina Castillo Aragon, the name of petitioner.
Likewise attached to the answer is a five-page motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid lower court order of October 21, 1964 filed on November 18, 1964 on behalf of complainant, as plaintiff, by her new counsel, Agustin V. Velante.5The answer further noted that on December 9, 1964 there was an order from the lower court denying such a motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.6
It is not to be lost sight of that copies of the answer, with its annexes as well as a brief memorandum on the part of respondent seeking the dismissal of the complaint against him, were sent to petitioner at her address at 1230 Juan Luna Street, Tondo, Manila by registered mail dated September 16, 1969. As of this date, complainant remains unheard from. Such silence on her part is indicative of her inability to assail the veracity of what was alleged. Considering, likewise, the annexes above referred to consisting of the duplicate original of the letter informing her about the alleged order, of which she was notified, dated as far back as October 26, 1964, the registry return receipt of October 30, 1964, the receipt that she was able as early as September 2, 1964, to take possession of the records of such a case so that she could avail herself of the services of another counsel, the motion for reconsideration filed by such new counsel, a lawyer from Manila, and the denial of such motion for reconsideration, it would appear that either out of deficient memory or lack of sufficient respect for the truth, complainant did impute a misconduct to respondent, of which he was innocent. Hence, there can be no other conclusion except that this complaint should be dismissed.
One last word. The observation is ever timely and is ever apt that great care should be taken by a client before lodging a complaint for disciplinary action. As was so appropriately observed by the great jurist, Cardozo: "A reputation [in the legal profession] is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored."7Very often, the livelihood of a member of the bar depends upon maintaining intact such a reputation. Equally dear to an advocate is the maintenance of the esteem that the public has for his probity, his dedication, his conscientiousness. The charge that he is neglectful of his client's interest, even if unfounded, as in this case, is unfortunately not without its adverse effect. There is all the more reason, then, to caution anyone who has availed himself of his services against any reckless or unfounded accusation, as did occur in this case. It is not enough to affirm that respondent Tomas B. Matol has not in any wise committed the malpractice imputed to him. The complainant, Avelina C. Aragon, must be admonished and cautioned against the repetition of the filing of such a baseless charge against any member of the bar.
WHEREFORE, this complaint for malpractice against Tomas B. Matol, a member of the Philippine Bar, is hereby dismissed.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Civil Case No. R-1040.
2Petition dated August 18, 1969 and filed on August 22, 1969.
3Answer, par. 3 and Annexes A and B.
4Ibid., Defenses and Annex C.
5Ibid., Annex D.
6Ibid., Annex E.
7People ex. rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 162 NE 487, 492 (1928).