View full case

EDGAR O. PEREA v. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO

FACTS:

Edgar Perea filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as Perea's lawyer in a pending criminal case. Perea alleges that Almadro was his counsel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, where he was charged with frustrated homicide. Perea believed that Almadro had filed a demurrer to evidence and that the case against him was dismissed. However, Perea later found out that Almadro failed to file any demurrer, and the trial court ordered him to present evidence in his defense. Perea suffered financial and emotional loss as a result. He pleaded with Almadro to formally withdraw as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Respondent filed three motions for extension of time to file a comment on the complaint. The Court granted the motions with a warning. Respondent then filed a Manifestation and Motion claiming that he had not yet received a copy of the complaint and requested the Court to order Perea to furnish them a copy. Respondent later submitted an Answer to the complaint, asserting that he had drafted the motion for leave to file a demurrer but was unable to find it on his computer diskette. He also claimed that he was preoccupied with other matters and had offered to withdraw as Perea's counsel. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP report concluded that respondent's claims were not convincing and that he and his counsel made false statements to the Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Ruben Almadro should be disbarred for gross neglect of his duties as complainant's counsel in a criminal case.

  2. Whether the motions and manifestations filed by Atty. Almadro's law firm contained deliberate misrepresentations.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Atty. Ruben Almadro should be disbarred for gross neglect of his duties as complainant's counsel. The Court found that Atty. Almadro failed to file a demurrer to evidence, causing the complainant to suffer financial and emotional hardship. The Court also noted that Atty. Almadro did not attend any of the complainant's hearings and did not properly communicate with the complainant. These acts constitute gross neglect of professional duties.

  2. Yes, the motions and manifestations filed by Atty. Almadro's law firm contained deliberate misrepresentations. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that the law firm's claim that Atty. Almadro had not yet received a copy of the complaint was an outrageous lie. The IBP also found that Atty. Almadro's claim that he believed the demurrer to evidence had been filed without his knowledge was pure garbage. These deliberate misrepresentations deserve condemnation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An attorney's duty towards his clients includes the obligation to exercise due diligence, act with competence, and protect the client's interests.

  • Gross neglect of professional duties by an attorney may lead to disciplinary measures, including disbarment.

  • Deliberate misrepresentations by an attorney, especially in court filings, are condemned and can result in disciplinary action.