Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 15 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10936 (Haydee M. Gubaton v. Atty. Egmedio B.
Castillon). — This is an administrative complaint 1 against respondent
lawyer Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon (Atty. Castillon) for neglect of legal matter
entrusted to him by his client, complainant Haydee M. Gubaton (Gubaton), in
violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). HTcADC
A careful examination of the case shows that Atty. Castillon was utterly
remiss in handling Gubaton's case. He never pursued the recovery of
Gubaton's stolen vehicle for which his services were engaged. Atty. Castillon
did not even report the incident to the police authorities and to Camp Crame.
His negligence resulted in Gubaton's failure to file a claim before the
insurance company as the period for filing thereof had already lapsed.
Worse, Atty. Castillon impressed upon Gubaton that he had already
filed a case and performed other actions to protect Gubaton's interest. The
latter even had to procure by herself the documents necessary in filing a
claim with the insurance company and to request for stoppage of payment of
the stolen vehicle.
Indeed, Atty. Castillon neglected his duty to Gubaton, his client, when
he did not act on the legal matter entrusted to him. Not only did he violate
the CPR but also his sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath to "delay no man
for money or malice, and [to] conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the
best of [his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to [his] clients."
Thus, the Court finds the penalty of suspension of one year from the
practice of law against Atty. Castillon to be proper. Not only did Atty.
Castillon fail to perform his duties to his client; his inaction likewise resulted
in prejudice to Gubaton who failed to timely file a claim with the insurance
company.
We reiterate that a lawyer must serve his/her client with competence
and diligence. 17 "A member of the legal profession owes his client entire
devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense
of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. Public
interest demands that an attorney exerts his best efforts and ability to
preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client
likewise serves the ends of justice." 18
The Court further notes that Atty. Castillon did not heed the IBP's
directive to file an answer. He likewise never appeared in the mandatory
conference held on different dates and had not submitted his verified
position paper despite receipt of notice. Clearly, Atty. Castillon's disregard of
the notices and orders issued by the IBP constitutes utter disrespect for the
Judiciary and his fellow lawyers and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. 19 He
must therefore pay a fine of P5,000.00 for his refusal to obey the orders of
the IBP, to appear during the scheduled mandatory conference, and to file
his position paper. 20
At this juncture, We reiterate our pronouncement in Cabauatan v. Atty.
Venida, 21 to wit:
Respondent's refusal to obey the orders of the IBP "is not only
irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary
and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for
lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and
processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with
court directives being themselves officers of the court." Respondent
should be reminded that —
As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know
that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but
an order which should be complied with promptly and
completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the
investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases
against lawyers.
Respondent should strive harder to live up to his
duties of observing and maintaining the respect due to
the courts, respect for law and for legal processes, and of
upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
in order to perform his responsibilities as a lawyer
effectively. 22
ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is found ADMINISTRATIVE
LIABLE for violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one year, effective immediately upon notice, with a STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Atty.
Egmedio B. Castillon is also ORDERED to PAY Haydee M. Gubaton the
amount of P70,000.00, with 12% interest from the date of demand until June
30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment. 23
Further, Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is meted a FINE of P5,000.00 for
disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which
must be paid within 10 days from receipt of this Resolution.
Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is DIRECTED to file a manifestation before
the Court as regards the date of receipt of this Resolution for the Court to be
informed when his suspension from the practice of law commenced, copy
furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he had entered his
appearance as counsel.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be entered into Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon's records, to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all the courts in the country for information and guidance. HEITAD
2. Id. at 4-5.
3. Id. at 7.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 8.
7. Id. at 7-8.
8. Id. at 2-4.
9. Id. at 13.
11. Id.
13. Id.
14. Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano, 685 Phil. 687, 692 (2012).
15. Id., citing Dalisay v. Atty. Mauricio, Jr., 496 Phil. 393, 400 (2005).
18. Id., citing Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, 447
Phil. 408, 414 (2003).
19. Cabauatan v. Atty. Venida, 721 Phil. 733, 738 (2013), citing Sibulo v. Ilagan,
486 Phil. 197, 203-204 (2004).
21. Supra.
23. Punla and Santos v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, 816 Phil. 776, 788 (2017), citing Nacar
v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
Â