GR 36808; (November, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36808 November 29, 1973
Tan Kui, doing business under the name and style of Sun Hing Bazar, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and So Tian Kit, respondents, Atty. Ramon Tuangco and Atty. Rolando C. Alvez, respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Tan Kui, represented by Atty. Rolando C. Alvez, seeking to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, however, discovered that an identical petition, docketed as G.R. No. L-36729 and filed by Atty. Ramon Tuangco on behalf of the same petitioner, had already been denied for lack of merit. Consequently, the Court required the petitioner and Atty. Alvez to explain why they should not be held in contempt for filing a duplicate petition. Their explanation asserted that Atty. Tuangco filed the first petition without proper authorization, claiming his role was limited to assisting Atty. Alvez with a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals. In response, Atty. Tuangco submitted a comment contending he was duly authorized and provided supporting affidavits.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the attorneys involved, Atty. Rolando C. Alvez and Atty. Ramon Tuangco, should be held accountable for professional misconduct or negligence leading to the filing of two identical petitions before the Supreme Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court, based on an investigation conducted by its designated investigator, Atty. Victor J. Sevilla, absolved Atty. Tuangco and admonished Atty. Alvez. The investigation revealed that Atty. Tuangco was properly authorized by Atty. Alvez, the counsel of record, to file the initial petition for certiorari. This authorization was corroborated by testimonies from the petitioner, Tan Kui, and an interpreter, Agustin Go. Therefore, Atty. Tuangco acted within his authorized scope and bore no liability for misbehavior.
The Court found that the filing of the second, identical petition by Atty. Alvez stemmed from a severe communication breakdown. The petitioner, Tan Kui, could not speak English or Filipino, creating a language barrier that hindered effective communication between him and his counsel. Atty. Alvez testified he was unaware of the first petition’s filing because he had not been informed by his client and had difficulty communicating with him. While the Court acknowledged that Atty. Alvez was motivated by a duty of zeal for his client’s cause under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, it ruled that this did not excuse his negligence. He failed to exercise the necessary diligence and thoroughness to ascertain whether a petition had already been filed with the Supreme Court, the highest tribunal. This lack of care resulted in unnecessary procedural confusion. Consequently, Atty. Alvez was admonished to act with greater circumspection and diligence in the future to remain fully informed of all proceedings in any litigation he handles.