G.R. No.

94457 June 10, 1992

VICTORIA LEGARDA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NEW
CATHAY HOUSE, INC. and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 94, respondents.
Summary:
Private Respondent filed an action for specific performance
when the latter refused to sign a lease agreement entered into by the
parties. Atty. Coronel, Petitioner’s counsel, requested an extension to
file an answer but still failed to do so. The lower court rendered a
decision by default and ordered Petitioner to execute and sign the
lease contract. Atty. Coronel made no action and the order attained
finality. Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment of the
lower court. CA dismissed the petition, stating that the case is one of
pure and simple negligence on the part of the Legarda's counsel, who
simply failed to file the answer in her behalf. Petitioner, represented
by a new counsel, filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
SC declared as null and void the RTC and CA decisions. SC also
required the former counsel, Atty. Coronel, to show cause why he
should not be held administatively liable for his acts and omissions
which resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner.

Facts:
1. Private Respondent, New Cathay House, Inc., and Petitioner,
Victoria Legarda, entered into a lease agreement for a property
in QC owned by Legarda which Cathay intended to use in
operating a restaurant.
a. For some reason, Legarda refused to sign the contract.
 b. Cathay made a deposit and downpayment of rentals then
filed for specific performance.
2. Legarda’s counsel, Atty. Antonio Coronel, requested a 10-day
extension to file an answer which was granted.
a. However, Atty. Coronel failed to file an answer within
that period.
RTC:
3. Upon motion of Cathay, Legarda was declared in default,
thereby Cathay presented evidence ex parte.
a. The lower court rendered a decision by default.
b. It ordered Victoria Legarda to execute and sign the lease
contract and to pay damages.
c. Atty. Coronel received a copy of the lower court’s decision
but no action was made by him.
d. Consequently, the decision became final and, upon motion
of Cathay, the lower court issued a writ of execution.
4. The QC property was then levied and auctioned off to pay for
the judgment debt.
a. Cathay’s manager, Cabrera, was the highest bidder in the
auction.
b. Legarda did not redeem the property within the 1-year
period redemption period, so the Sheriff issued a final deed
of sale which was duly registered with RoD.
5. Legarda, represented by her attorney-in-fact Ligaya C. Gomez,
filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of the
judgment.
 a. She alleged therein that the decision was obtained through
fraud and that it is not supported by the allegations in the
pleadings nor by the evidence submitted.
CA:
6. CA dismissed the petition, stating that this case is one of pure
and simple negligence on the part of the Legarda's counsel, who
simply failed to file the answer in her behalf.
a. No motion for reconsideration was filed and the CA
decision became final.
b. Cathay sent Legarda a letter demanding that she vacate the
property within three days from receipt thereof.
c. Atty. Coronel did not inform petitioner of this
development until sometime later
7. Legarda, represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for
certiorari under rule 65 contending that the decisions of the
courts below "are null and void as petitioner was deprived of her
day in court and divested of her property without due process of
law through the gross, pervasive and malicious negligence of
previous counsel, Atty. Antonio Coronel.
SC:
8. SC declared as null and void the RTC and CA decisions, as well
as the sheriff's certificate of sale of the property involved and
the subsequent final deed of sale covering the same.
a. SC further directed Cathay to reconvey the property to
Legarda and the ROD to cancel the registration of said
property in the name of Cathay and to issue a new one in
the name of the Legarda.
 9. SC also required the former counsel of petitioner, Atty. Antonio
Coronel, to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why he
should not be held administatively liable for his acts and
omissions which resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner.
a. Atty. Coronel filed an urgent ex-parte motion for an
extension of thirty (30) days.
b. The Court granted said motion for extension with warning
that no further extension will be given.
c. A day after the expiration of the 30-day extended period
prayed for in his first motion for extension, Atty. Coronel
had mailed another urgent motion for a second extension
of thirty (30) days within which to submit his explanation
on the ground that since March 2, 1992, he had been
"treated and confined at the St. Luke's Hospital."
d. While off-hand, the reasons cited in the second motion for
reconsideration seem to warrant another extension, the
fact that it was filed on day late, coupled with the
circumstances of this case do not call for a reconsideration
of the resolution, and the second motion was denied.
e. SC considers his failure to show cause, not-withstanding
reasonable notice therefor, as a waiver of his rights to be
heard and to due process, thereby warranting an ex
parte determination of the matter for which he had been
required to explain.

Issue:
WON Atty. Coronel was guilty of gross negligence in the
defense of petitioner Victoria Legarda.
Ruling: YES.
In Cantiller v. Potenciano, the Supreme Court enunciated that:
Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system
of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time when
strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the
legal profession, strict compliance with one's oath of office
and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above
suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their
clients. The profession is not synonymous with an
ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public
interest.
In this case, Atty. Coronel's failure to exercise due diligence in
protecting and attending to the interest of his client caused the latter
material prejudice. It should be remembered that the moment a
lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort
for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to
exercise due diligence or abandons his client's cause makes him
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by the latter. Moreover, a
lawyer owes fealty, not only to his client, but also to the Court of
which he is an officer. Atty. Coronel failed to obey this Court's order
even on a matter that personally affects him, such that one cannot
avoid the conclusion that he must be bent on professional self-
destruction.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the second motion for an extension of time to
file explanation is hereby DENIED. Atty. Antonio P. Coronel is
hereby found GUILTY of gross negligence in the defense of petitioner
Victoria Legarda in Civil Case No. Q-43811 and accordingly
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
effective from the date of his receipt of this resolution. A repetition of
the acts constituting gross negligence shall be dealt with more
severely.