Jeanet S. Tabilog Torts & Damages Atty. Melvin C. Dequito A.C. No.

4955 September 12, 2011 Antonio Conlu Complainant vs. Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr., - Respondent

FACTS: This case is a Disbarment case with prayer for damages against Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. on grounds of gross negligence filed by Antonio Conlu, his client in a case for Quieting of Title. The complainant secured the services of Atty. Aredonia to represent him. The Court rendered a Decision against the complainant. The Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, however the same was dismissed for failure of Atty. Aredonia to file the appeallants brief. The dismissal of the appeal learned only after the wife of the complainant verified the status of the appeal. Atty. Aredonia seek reconsideration on the resolution alleging that he did not received copy of the resolution, but the same was denied because of the late filing of the motion. The private complainant personally filed another motion for reconsideration but the same was denied for the reason that the belated filing of Atty. Aredonias first motion for reconsideration binds Antonio. Antonio then, appealed to the Supreme Court but said appeal was denied by the Court. Thereafter, Antonio filed the disbarment case before the Office of the Bar Confidant who rendered a Report/Recommendation to the Court. The Court in its resolution imposed among others the filing of an administrative case against Atty. Aredonia before the IBPCommission on Bar Discipline. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there is gross negligence on the part of Atty. Aredonia. 2. Whether or not res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. 3. Whether or not complainant is entitled for damages. RULING: On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to file a brief resulting to the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. This default and his failure to inform his client of the status of the case translates to a violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states,

CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. xxxx Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. On the second issue, the Court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case as Atty. Aredonia had doubtlessly been languid in the performance of his duty as Antonios counsel. He neglect without reason to file the appellants brief before the CA. He failed, in short to exert his utmost ability and to give his full commitment to maintain and defend Antonios right. Antonio, by choosing Atty. Ireneo to represent him, relied upon and reposed his trust and confidence on the latter, as his counsel, to do whatsoever was legally necessary to protect Antonios interest, if not to secure a favorable judgment. Once they agree to take up the cause of a client, lawyers, regardless of the importance of the subject matter litigated or financial arrangements agreed upon, owe fidelity to such cause and should always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on them. On the third issue, the Court ruled that the complainant is not entitle to damages for failure to satisfactorily prove his claim for damages. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. is declared

GUILTY of inexcusable negligence, attempting to mislead the appellate court, misuse of Court processes, and willful disobedience to lawful orders of the Court. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

G.R. No. 173259

July 25, 2011

Philippine National Bank, petitioner vs. F.F. CRUZ and CO., INC., respondent,

FACTS: This petition for review arose from a case for damages filed by FF Cruz against PNB. Plaintiff FF Cruz has open an account at PNBTimog Ave. Branch, wherein its president and its secretary-treasurer were the named signatories. Plaintiff FF Cruz, avers that PNB has been negligent to deduct the cashiers and managers checks amounting to Php9,950,000.00 and Php3,260,000.00, respectively, as the same were unauthorized and fraudulently made by the company accountant Aurea Caparas as both the president and the secretary were out of the country at that time. The plaintiff seeks to credit back and restore to its account the value of the checks, to which the defendant bank refused as the defendant bank alleged that it exercised due diligence in handling the account of FF Cruz, as the application of said checks have passed a through standard bank procedures and it was only after finding that it has no infirmity that the checks were given due course. The trial court rendered a Decision against defendant bank for not calling or personally verifying from the authorized signatories the legitimacy of the subject withdrawals considering that they were huge amounts. For this reason, defendant PNB had the last clear chance to prevent the unauthorized debits from the FF Cruz account. And thus, PNB should bear the whole loss. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, affirmed the Decision of the trial court with modification on the award for damages that PNB should only pay 60% of the actual damage and the Plaintiff FF Cruz should bear the remaining 40% for its contributory negligence by giving authority to its company accountant to transact with defendant bank PNB. Petitioner PNB appealed the Court of Appeals Decision.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the principle of last clear chance principle is applicable to held the defendant bank liable for damages.

RULING:

The Court ruled that the finding of the appellate court that PNB failed to make a proper verification as the managers check do not bear the signature of the bank verifier, thus casting doubt as whether the

signatures were indeed underwent the proper verification. In view of the foregoing, the Court ruled that PNB was negligent in handling the FF Cruz account specifically with respect to PNBs failure to detect the forgeries in subject application for managers check which could have prevented the loss. It further states, that PNB failed to meet the high standard of diligence required by the circumstances to prevent the fraud, where the banks negligence is the proximate cause of the loss and the depositor is guilty of contributory negligence, the damage between the bank and the depositor, a 60-40 ratio applies. Wherefore, the petition was denied and the CAs Decision is affirmed.