ATTY. ELDORADO T. LIM vs ATTY. LILIAN A.

SUAN-RADAM
A.C. No. 12295
March 18, 2019

Facts:

The petitioner (LIM) alleged that he was the counsel of Chan Chung Yan in a case for forcible entry and damages
filed against one Adelfa G. Andres before the MeTC of Quezon City. After a decision was rendered in favor of his
client, Adelfa’s lawyers allegedly employed dilatory tactics in order to delay the implementation of the decision.
Adelfa’s first lawyer then filed a petition for relief from judgment during the implementation and execution stage
of the case. Thereafter, Adelfa discharged her first lawyer and engaged the services of respondent (SUAN-
RADAM). When the petition for relief from judgment was denied, Atty. Suan-Radam filed a motion for
reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Summary Procedure.

Complainant also averred that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law when she filed the motion and
alleged that respondent committed malpractice when she filed the motion despite lack of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance.

Respondent denied the allegations and asserted that she intended to obey the order of the court when it apprised
her that a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the Rules. She further stated that she failed
to attend the hearing on said motion as she was then attending the MCLE courses for her fifth compliance.
According to the respondent, her absence during the hearing on the motion due to completion of her MCLE
compliance requirements attested to her intention to comply.

Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline of IBP:

 Suspension of respondent from 3 months – It opined that respondent made a mockery of the judicial
processes when she filed the motion for reconsideration.
 Another 3 months or until she complied with her MCLE requirements – It noted respondent’s admission
in her answer that she did not comply with the MCLE requirements. It also found insufficient respondent’s
assertion that she was exempt from said requirement.

Issue:

Is Atty. Suan-Radam guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, the Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Bar Matter No. 850 (MCLE)?

Ruling:

YES. The Court adopts the findings of the Commission and recommendation of the Board.

It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory motions,
repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of
judgment. In this case, the Court agrees with the ruling of the IBP that a practicing lawyer ought to know the basic
precepts of the rules on cases involving summary procedure. At the onset, respondent should have advised her
client that a petition for relief from judgment, which was filed by the previous lawyer, is a prohibited pleading
under the Revised Rules. However, respondent even filed a motion for reconsideration which is another
prohibited pleading under the Rules. Worse, she failed to attend the hearing on said motion without any
supporting justification, which further delayed the proceedings.

Moreover, Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education to ensure that
throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession, and
enhance the standard of the practice of law. Here, respondent admitted that she failed to comply with her MCLE
requirements. Thus, she should be held administratively liable for failure to comply with said requirements.