4/18/2017 A.C. No.

7922

TodayisTuesday,April18,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

A.C.No.7922October1,2013

MARYANNT.MATTUS,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ALBERTT.VILLASECA,Respondent.

DECISION

PERCURIAM:

BeforeusisacomplaintfordisbarmentfiledbycomplainantMaryAnnT.MattusagainstAtty.AlbertT.Villasecafor
grossandinexcusablenegligenceinhandlingCriminalCaseNo.1030902.

BackgroundFacts

Thecomplainant,GermanBernardoD.MattusandDexterAliganweretheaccusedinCriminalCaseNo.1030902
a case for estafa thru falsification of public document filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus,
Cavite.Thecomplainantandherhusband,German,engagedtheservicesofAtty.Villasecatorepresenttheminthe
proceedings.ThecomplainantmaintainedthatsheandGermanwereconvictedduetoAtty.Villasecasgrossand
inexcusablenegligenceinperforminghisdutiesastheircounsel.

Inhercomplaintaffidavit,1thecomplainantalleged,amongothers,thatAtty.Villaseca:(1)wasoftenabsentduring
court hearings but still collected appearance fees (2) frequently sought the postponement of trial when he was
present(3)failedtoasktheRTCtodirectaNationalBureauofInvestigationexperttoexaminethesignaturesofthe
spousesLeslieandZuraidaPorter2inthespecialpowerofattorney(SPA)(4)failedtofileademurrertoevidence
despitehavingbeengrantedsufficienttimebytheRTCtosubmitone(5)failedtopresentevidenceonbehalfofthe
defense, and only filed a memorandum (6) did not inform her and German of the dates of the presentation of
defenseevidenceandthepromulgationofjudgmentand(7)erroneouslyindicatedthewrongcasenumberinthe
noticeofappeal.Accordingtothecomplainant,Atty.Villasecasnegligenceinhandlingthecaseresultedinherown
andherhusbandsconviction.

IntheCourtsResolution3ofJuly16,2008,werequiredAtty.Villasecatocommentonthecomplaint.

On September 10, 2008, Atty. Villaseca filed his comment,4 refuting the allegations against him. Atty. Villaseca
explainedthathemadeknowntothecomplainantthatthetestimonyofahandwritingexpertwasnecessaryonlyif
the prosecution would be able to produce the original copy of the SPA. Atty. Villaseca also claimed that his
absences during the hearings, as well as his numerous motions for postponement, were justified and were never
intendedfordelay.Hedeniedhavingcollectedappearancefeeswhenhedidnotattendthescheduledhearings,and
maintainedthatthefeeshereceivedwereintendedtocompensatehimforhisservicesintheothercasesfiledby
the complainant. Atty. Villaseca further claimed that he immediately corrected the case number in the notice of
appealwhenhediscoveredthiserror.

In a Resolution5dated October 15, 2008, we referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation,reportandrecommendation.

TheIBPsReportandRecommendation

InhisReportandRecommendation6datedSeptember16,2009,InvestigatingCommissionerSalvadorB.Hababag
recommendedthatAtty.Villasecabesuspendedforsix(6)monthsfromthepracticeoflaw.

Commissioner Hababag ruled that Atty. Villasecas reckless and gross negligence deprived his clients of due
process his actuations in the criminal case showed utter disregard for his clients life and liberty. Commissioner

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html 1/5
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7922
HababagexplainedthatAtty.Villasecafailedtofileademurrertoevidencedespitethesufficientlengthoftimethat
hadbeengiventohimbytheRTCtosubmitthispleading,andwaivedhisrighttopresentevidenceforthedefense,
opting instead to file a memorandum only. Commissioner Hababag concluded that Atty. Villasecas failure to
properlyattendtotheinterestsofhisclientsledtotheirconviction.

In Resolution No. XIX20112517 dated May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
findingsoftheInvestigatingCommissioner,butincreasedAtty.Villasecasperiodofsuspensionfromthepracticeof
lawfromsix(6)monthstoone(1)year.

OurRuling

Afteracarefulreviewoftherecords,theCourtfindstheevidenceonrecordsufficienttosupporttheIBPsfindings.
We,however,increaseAtty.Villasecasperiodofsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawfromone(1)yeartofive(5)
years.

Westressattheoutsetthatalawyer"isexpectedtoexerthisbesteffortsandabilitytopreservehisclient'scause,
fortheunwaveringloyaltydisplayedtohisclientlikewiseservestheendsofjustice."8Oncealawyeragreestotake
up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. He owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in maintenance and
defenseofhisclientsrights,andtheexertionofhisutmostlearningandabilitytotheendthatnothingbetakenor
withheldfromhisclient,savebytherulesoflaw,legallyapplied.Alawyerwhoperformshisdutywithdiligenceand
candornotonlyprotectstheinterestofhisclienthealsoservestheendsofjustice,doeshonortothebar,andhelps
maintaintherespectofthecommunitytothelegalprofession.9

TherecordsofthepresentcaseshowthatAtty.VillasecahadbeengrosslyremissinhandlingCriminalCaseNo.
1030902.Torecall,Atty.Villasecarequestedfortimetofiledemurrertoevidenceaftertheprosecutionhadrested
its case. In its order 10 of July 1, 2004, the RTC gave him 20 days from receipt of the transcript of stenographic
notes within which to file a demurrer to evidence. Atty. Villaseca, however, did not file a demurrer to evidence,
without offering any explanation why he failed to do so. As a result, the RTC issued an order 11statingthatAtty.
Villaseca"isdeemedtohavewaivedhisrighttofilethesaidpleading."

To our mind, Atty. Villasecas failure to submit a demurrer to evidence to explain such omission constitutes
inexcusablenegligenceitshowedhislackofdevotionandzealinpreservinghisclientscause.Wepointoutthat
nine months had lapsed from the time the RTC granted Atty. Villaseca 20 days to file the demurrer to the time it
ruledthathewasdeemedtohavewaivedhisrighttofilethispleading.Clearly,Atty.Villasecasactuationsviolated
Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "a lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or
offeringanexplanationforhisfailuretodoso."

TherecordsfurtherdisclosedthatafterAtty.Villasecasfailuretofileademurrertoevidence,theRTCsettheinitial
presentation of defense evidence on May 9, 2005. However, this hearing was postponed thrice: the May 9, 2005
hearing was reset to August 8, 2005 due to Atty. Villasecas failure to appear12 the August 8, 2005 hearing was
reset to November 17, 2005 upon Atty. Villasecas motion13 and the November 17, 2005 hearing was reset to
March1,2006becauseofAtty.Villasecasmanifestationthathisintendedfirstwitnesswasunavailable.14 During
theMarch1,2006hearing,therespondentmanifestedthatthedefensewouldnolongerpresentanyevidence,and
movedthathebegiventimetofileamemorandum.15

WepointoutthattheprosecutionresteditscaseonJuly1,2004yetAtty.VillasecawaiteduntilMarch1,2006only
tomanifestthathewouldnolongerpresentanyevidence.WeareatalosswhyAtty.Villasecachosenottopresent
anyevidenceforthedefense,consideringthattheaccusedwantedandwerereadytotakethewitnessstand.Asa
result, the testimony of the lone prosecution witness remained uncontroverted. To make matters worse, Atty.
VillasecadirectedGermantoattendthehearingonJune6,2007withoutinforminghimthatitwasalreadythedateof
thepromulgationofjudgment. 1wphi1

TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitystatesthat"alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhisclientandheshallbe
mindfulofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim."16Itfurthermandatesthat"alawyershallservehisclientwith
competenceanddiligence."17Italsostatesthat"alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim,andhis
negligenceinconnectiontherewithshallrenderhimliable."18

Atty.Villasecasfailuretopresentanytestimonial,objectordocumentaryevidenceforthedefenserevealshislack
ofdiligenceinperforminghisdutiesasanofficeroftheCourtitshowedhisindifferencetowardsthecauseofhis
clients. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his clients were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have exerted
effortstorebutthepresentedprosecutionevidence.Hecouldhavepresentedthecomplainantand/orherhusband
to the witness stand, instead of just opting to file a memorandum. Or, at the very least, the reason for this move
shouldhavebeenfullyexplainedtotheclients,andlatertotheIBPandtothisCourt.Butnosuchexplanationever
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html 2/5
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7922
came.WearethusleftwiththestarkrealitythatAtty.Villasecafailedtofile,despitethepromisemadetothelower
court,ademurrertoevidence.Afterfailinginthisfirstlineofdefenseforhisclients,itshouldhavebeenincumbent
uponAtty.Villasecatopresentevidenceforthedefense,butagain,heunexplainablyfailedtodothis,leavingthe
lowercourtwithnoevidencetoappreciateexceptthatoftheprosecution,tothedetrimentofhisclientscause.

Weemphasizethatwhilealawyerhascompletediscretiononwhatlegalstrategytoemployinacaseentrustedto
him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law to support his clients cause. A
memorandum, no matter how lengthy, should not be made a substitute for testimonial, object or documentary
evidence,moresoinacriminalcasewhereaconvictioncouldleadtodireconsequences.Insayingso,wearenot
insinuatingthattheRTCdecisionwouldhavetiltedinfavorofthedefensehadAtty.Villasecapresentedevidence
wesimplystressthatutmostfidelityandattentionaredemandedoncecounselagreestotakethecudgelsforhis
client'scause.

We again remind members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms expected of the legal profession by
upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer engaged to
represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. It is his duty to
servehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligence,andheshouldexerthisbesteffortstoprotect,withintheboundsof
thelaw,theinterestsofhisclient.19Alawyersdiligenceandvigilanceismoreimperativeincriminalcases,where
the life and liberty of an accused is at stake. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the
correspondingduties,notonlytotheclient,butalsotothecourt,tothebarandtothepublic.Asweexplainedin
SpousesBautistav.Atty.ArturoCefra:20

ThepracticeoflawisaprivilegebestowedbytheStateonthosewhoshowthattheypossessthelegalqualifications
for it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including
honesty,integrityandfairdealing.Theymustperformtheirfourfolddutytosociety,thelegalprofession,thecourts
and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility.

"The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts."21 Under the circumstances, we find that the IBPs recommended penalty of one years
suspensionfromthepracticeoflawisnotcommensuratetoAtty.Villasecastransgressions.Hisincompetenceand
appallingindifferencetohisdutytohisclient,thecourtsandsocietyindicateahighdegreeofirresponsibilitythat
castsdishonoronthelegalprofession.

ThepresentcasefindsacloseforerunnerinSantecov.Atty.Avance,22wherewesuspendedAtty.LunaB.Avance
fromthepracticeoflawforfive(5)yearsforbeinggrosslyremissintheperformanceofherdutiesascounsel.Inthis
citedcase,thecivilcaseentrustedtoAtty.Avancewasdismissedforfailuretoprosecute.Duringthependencyof
hermotionforreconsideration(whichshehadfiledwaybeyondthereglementaryperiod),shetoldherclientthatshe
wouldfileapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCAtoassailthedismissalofthecivilcase.Shedidnotfilethispetition,
butfailedtoinformherclientofthisomission.Moreover,Atty.Avancestoppedappearingascounselforherclient
withoutnotifyingthelatter.

Atty.Villasecasnegligenceinthepresentcasehadmuchgraverimplications,asthelegalmatterentrustedtohim
involvednotmerelymoneyorproperty,buttheverylibertyandlivelihoodofhisclients.Westressthatthemoment
Atty. Villaseca agreed to handle the complainants criminal case, he became dutybound to serve his clients with
competence and diligence, and to champion their cause with wholehearted fidelity. By failing to afford his clients
everyremedyanddefensethatisauthorizedbythelaw,Atty.Villasecafellshortofwhatisexpectedofhimasan
officer of the Court. We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
professionbyfaithfullyperforminghisdutiestosociety,tothebar,tothecourtsandtohisclients.

All told, Atty. Villaseca showed a wanton and utter disregard to his clients cause his failure to exercise due
diligenceinattendingtotheirinterestinthecriminalcasecausedthemgraveprejudice.Underthecircumstances,
wefindafiveyearsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawtobeasufficientandappropriatesanctionagainsthim.The
increasedpenaltyservesthepurposeofprotectingtheinterestoftheCourt,thelegalprofessionandthepublic.

WHEREFOREpremisesconsidered,wefindAtty.AlbertT.Villasecaguiltyofnegligence,inviolationofRules12.03
and18.03andCanon17oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.HeisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeof
law for five (5) years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
sameorsimilaroffensewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtotheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,and
theOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorforcirculationtoallthecourts.

SOORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html 3/5
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7922
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

(OnLeave)
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice LUCASP.BERSAMIN*
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

(OnLeave)
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.** AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

(OnLeave)
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
JOSECATRALMENDOZA** AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

Footnotes
*Onleave.

**Onofficialleave.

1Rollo,pp.24.

2PrivatecomplainantsinCriminalCaseNo.1030902.

3Rollo,p.26.

4Id.at3239.

5Id.at175.

6Id.at215224.

7Id.at214.

8SeeReyesv.Atty.Vitan,496Phil.1,5(2005).

9AugustoP.Baldadov.Atty.AquilinoA.Mejica,A.C.No.9120,March11,2013.

10Rollo,p.18.

11Id.at17.

12Id.at15.

13Id.at13.

14Id.at11.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html 4/5
4/18/2017 A.C. No. 7922
15Id.at9.

16Canon17oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

17Canon18oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

18Rule18.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

19SeeVda.deEnriquezv.Atty.SanJose,545Phil.379,383(2007).

20A.C.No.5530,January28,2013,689SCRA262,268.

21SeeVillanuevav.Gonzales,A.C.No.7657,February12,2008,544SCRA410,419.

22463Phil.359(2003).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html 5/5