[A.C. No. 6072. July
23, 2003]
PINOTE vs. BENSI
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated JUL 23 2003.
A.C. No. 6072 (Wenceslao B. Pinote vs. Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi.)
Complainant Wenceslao B, Pinote and his wife, Anacleta, were then
residing in Manila
when they engaged the services of respondent, Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi, in 1991
to file a complaint in Baybay, Leyte for
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale against Anacleta’s brother,
Andres Cuarenta. On September 1991, the complainant and his wife received a
letter from Atty. Bensi asking them for P1,000 as filing fees for the
complaint. They sent Atty. Bensi the money and the latter, in turn, reported
that he already filed the said complaint with Branch 4 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Baybay, Leyte. Atty. Bensi likewise sent them a copy of the
complaint, which was docketed as Civil Case No. B-1173. In 1995, the couple
visited Leyte and asked Atty. Bensi about the case. They were told that the
hearing on the said case has not started since a judge has yet to be assigned
in Baybay, Leyte. The couple returned to Manila relying on these words. In
2000, complainant Pinote retired from his job in Manila and, together with his
entire family, relocated to Baybay, Leyte. It was then that he discovered that
Atty. Bensi no longer lived there and when he personally went to Branch 4 of
the RTC of Baybay to inquire about the status of Civil Case No. B-1173, he
found out that although the said complaint was indeed filed with the court, no
action was taken since the filing fees were not fully paid. Complainant and his
wife also found out that Andres Cuarenta succeeded in selling the property
allegedly owned in part by complainant’s wife.
Hence, on October
18, 2002, complainant Pinote filed his letter-complaint before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
charging Atty. Bensi for negligence in the handling of their case. Complainant
likewise alleged therein that he and his wife had given Atty. Bensi around
P11,000, which the latter said would be used for the registration expenses of
the subject land in the case, miscellaneous expenses, and attorney’s fees.
In a letter dated December
7, 2002, Atty. Bensi did not deny the allegations set forth in the
complaint. However, he attributed this to a “communication gap” between him and
his clients. In the said letter, he likewise asked that he be given one month
to try to settle the matter with complainant and his wife. On February
19, 2003, the Commission on Bar Discipline received another letter
from Atty. Bensi offering to file another case to recover the subject property
sold by Andres Cuarenta and to shoulder all the expenses for the said case.
In a report dated March
28, 2003, the Commission on Bar Discipline stated that although
Atty. Bensi offered to file another case and shoulder all expenses in pursuing
the same, this offer came too late. The report stated that if respondent had
complied with the legal duty to his clients, it would not have been necessary
to file a case for recovery of the land. It was found that Atty. Bensi’s
dereliction of duty to his clients allowed Andres Cuarenta to alienate the
subject property to the prejudice of complainant’s wife.
On April 26,
2003, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No.
XV-2003-208, stating:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/ Decision as Annex
“A”; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
and the applicable laws and , rules, and, considering respondent’s failure to
comply with the duty imposed under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Bensi is hereby REPRIMANDED and further WARNED that a
similar action in the future will be dealt with more severely.
We agree. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
A lawyer 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. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client,
he must serve the client with competence and diligence and champion the
latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.
WHEREFORE, respondent
Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi is hereby REPRIMANDED with a warning that any similar
action in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court