Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:p
The respondent lawyer, Atty. Francisco L. Daria, is administratively charged 1 on
two counts, to wit:
1. Negligence and
2. Betrayal of his former client's confidences.
A verified complaint dated February 22, 1985 was filed by Lorenzana Food
Corporation LFC, hereinafter), and received by the Court on February 25, 1985. 2
The Court, on June 10, 1985, resolved to refer this case to the Office of the
Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
After proper proceedings, the Office of the Solicitor General submitted its
"Report and Recommendation," dated February 21, 1990 and received by the
Court on February 26, 1990.
From the findings made by the Solicitor General, the pertinent facts may be
summarized as follows:
Respondent Francisco L. Daria is charged with negligence and
betrayal of his former client's confidences. The following facts are in
connection with the charge of negligence:
Respondent was hired by complainant Lorenzana Food
Corporation (LFC) on January 8, 1981 as its legal counsel and was
designated as its personnel manager six months later (tsn. pp. 6-7,
Dec. 9, 1985). On May 23, 1983, LFC employee, Violeta Hanopol,
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims
against complainant before the Ministry (now Department) of Labor
and Employment (MOLE). On May 30, 1983, summons was served
on the parties with the requirement that position papers be
submitted (Exh. G).
During the initial hearing on June 13, 1973 * (sic) Hanopol and
respondent tried to explore the possibility of an amicable
settlement. Since no agreement was reached the hearing was reset
to June 17, 1983. On the pretext that Hanopol was supposed to go
to his office on that date respondent failed to appear for the
second setting (tsn. pp. 14-15, Dec. 9, 1985). So, the Labor Arbiter
was constrained to further reset the hearing to June 28, 1983.
Respondent received on June 23, 1983 the Order for the resetting to
June 1983 (Exh. J).
In the meantime, on June 20, 1983, respondent received an Order
in another labor case, setting the hearing therein also on June 28,
1983 (Exh. H-6). Faced with a conflicting schedule, respondent
decided to move to postpone the hearing in the Hanopol case.
However, instead of filing a written motion for postponement, he
opted to call, through his secretary, the Office of the Labor Arbiter
to move for postponement (Exh. H-5; tsn. p. 16, Dec. 9, 1985).
Respondent's telephone message apparently failed to reach the
Labor Arbiter, because at the hearing on June 28, 1983, he
considered the case submitted for decision on the basis of
Hanopol's complaint and affidavit (Exh. G-1). Respondent had not
submitted a position paper.
After a month, on July 29, 1983, the Labor Arbiter issued a Decision
directing LFC to pay Hanopol the total sum of P6,469.60 in labor
benefits, on the basis of Hanopol's evidence alone.