[G.R. No. 122855.

November 14, 2001]

METRO ILOILO WATER DISTRICT. vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 14
2001.

G.R. No. 122855(Metro Iloilo Water District vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Severino C.
Aguilar, Emma Nava, Rufino Sitica, Jr., et al.)

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Pablo S. Tolentino, counsel
for respondent Rufino Sitaca, praying that the fine in the amount of P5,000.00 imposed
upon him for his failure to file the required memorandum be reduced to P2,000.00 and
that the warrant for his arrest and detention be lifted.

The records show that in the Resolution of 28 June 1999, movant-counsel Tolentino was
required to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for failure to file the
required memorandum.1 p. 398, Rollo. Movant-counsel failed to comply with the
Resolution of 28 June 1999, hence another Resolution dated November 22, 1999 was
issued imposing upon him a fine of P1,000.00 or to suffer imprisonment of 5 days in
case he fails to pay. Movant-counsel again failed to comply with the resolution requiring
him to file the respondent's memorandum and, hence, an increase in the amount of fine
to P2,000.00 and imprisonment of 10 days in case of failure to pay was imposed upon
movant-counsel in the Resolution of 12 July 2000.2 p. 418, ibid. Movant-counsel did not
pay the increased fine and neither did he file the required memorandum. Thus, on 14
February 2001, this Court issued a Resolution increasing further the fine to P5,000.00
payable within ten (10) days from notice, otherwise, he will be ordered arrested and
detained until he files the required memorandum.3 p. 421, ibid. Per Certification dated
9 August 2001 issued by Araceli C. Bayuga, Cashier V of the Disbursement and
Collection Division of this Court, no payment of fine was made by movant-counsel.4 p.
429, ibid. On 17 September 2001, this Court issued a Resolution for the issuance of
warrant of arrest against movant-counsel and directed the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) to arrest and detain him until he fully complies with the Resolution
of 14 February 2001.5 p. 430, ibid. On 11 October 2001, movant-counsel filed the
respondent's Memorandum and paid the amount of P5,000.00 as court fine.6 pp. 434 &
441, ibid.

The present motion for reconsideration was interposed seeking a reduction of the
amount of fine from P5,000.00 to P2,000.00 and the lifting of the warrant of arrest.

Movant-counsel's main excuse for not filing the required Memorandum within the
period was due to his client's failure to provide the necessary expenses for the
preparation of the Memorandum. He claims that his client, who went to the United
States without leaving any address, paid him "a meager sum of P7,000.00 for handling
the case from the Regional Trial Court, to the Court of Appeals and now the Supreme
Court". Movant-counsel further alleges that he became very sick and was ejected from
his address that he had to transfer from one place to another.

Movant-counsel should be reminded that the legal profession is not a money-making

venture but a noble involvement in the administration of justice. A lawyer who accepts
the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard
of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.7 Rule 14.04, Canon 14, Code of
Professional Responsibility. He must represent his client with utmost fidelity,
competence and diligence.8 Canons 17 & 18, ibid. Moreover, his duty is enshrined in the
Attorney's Oath which every lawyer has to take before he is allowed to practice law, i.e.,
"to delay no man for money or malice". Movant-counsel's repeated failure to file the
respondent's memorandum is a clear violation of his oath. On this score alone, a
reduction of the fine is not in order.

We recognize the fact that a lawyer, like other human beings, has a right to a livelihood
and adequate compensation is necessary to enable him to serve his client effectively.
However, counsel may enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary petition as an
incident in the main action in which his services were rendered when something is due
his client. The non-filing of pleadings required by the Court is not a remedy.

As regards the prayer to be relieved of his duties and responsibilities as counsel for
respondent Sitaca, the same is denied. The procedure for change of counsel is set forth
in Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Finally, the order for the .arrest of movant-counsel is a consequence of his non-
compliance with this Court's resolutions requiring him to file the respondent's
Memorandum and his detention would depend on the time when he will comply.
Considering that movant-counsel has filed the respondent's Memorandum on 11
October 2001, his arrest and detention is now rendered moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED in

that the Alias Warrant of Arrest issued pursuant to the Resolution of 17 September 2001
is LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.