JOSEPH C. CHUA vs. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO
A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015
Facts:
Chua alleged that his company, Nemar Computer Resources Corp., filed a collection case against Dr. Concepcion Aguila Memorial College, represented by its counsel, Atty. De Castro.
According to Chua, since the filing of the collection case, it took more than five (5) years to present one witness of NCRC due to Atty. De Castro's propensity to seek postponements of agreed hearing dates for unmeritorious excuses. Atty. De Castro's flimsy excuses would vary from simple absence without notice, to claims of alleged ailment unbacked by any medical certificates, to claims of not being ready despite sufficient time given to prepare, to the sending of a representative lawyer who would profess non-knowledge of the case to seek continuance, to a plea for the postponement without providing any reason therefore.
Moreover, Chua averred that when the trial court required Atty. De Castro to explain why he should not be held in contempt for such delays, he belatedly made his explanation, further contributing to the delay of the proceedings.
For his defense, Atty. De Castro countered that his pleas for continuance and resetting were based on valid grounds. Also, he pointed out that most of the resetting were without the objection of the counsel for NCRC, and that, certain resetting were even at the instance of the latter.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disciplined
Moreover, Chua averred that when the trial court required Atty. De Castro to explain why he should not be held in contempt for such delays, he belatedly made his explanation, further contributing to the delay of the proceedings.
For his defense, Atty. De Castro countered that his pleas for continuance and resetting were based on valid grounds. Also, he pointed out that most of the resetting were without the objection of the counsel for NCRC, and that, certain resetting were even at the instance of the latter.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disciplined
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling: Yes
"Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers' duty." Rule 1.03 and Rule 10.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.cralawlawlibrary
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.cralawlawlibrary
As shown by the records, Atty. De Castro violated his oath of office in his handling of the collection case against his client. Chua was able to show that, through Atty. De Castro's atrocious maneuvers, he successfully delayed the disposition of the case, causing injury and prejudice to NCRC.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended on the following grounds: (i) deceit; (ii) malpractice; (iii) gross misconduct in office; (iv) grossly immoral conduct; (v) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (vi) violation of the lawyers oath; (vii) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (viii) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do.
Here, Atty. De Castro clearly caused a mockery of the judicial proceedings and inflicted injury to the administration of justice through his deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral conduct. "Indeed, he abused beyond measure his privilege to practice law."
Penalty: suspension from the practice of law for three months
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment