LEGAL ETHICS - Edrial vs. Quilat-Quilat, G.R. No. 133625.

September 6, 2000

THIRD DIVISION Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez;

[G.R. No. 133625. September 6, 2000] November 20, 1984

REMEDIOS F. EDRIAL, MAURO EDRIAL JR., MARYLENE EDRIAL, ILDEFONSO EDRIAL, ROSALIND Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez;
EDRIAL, MARY JEAN EDRIAL, and SUSAN EDRIAL-VALENZUELA, petitioners, vs. PEDRO
QUILAT-QUILAT, GABRIELA QUILAT-QUILAT, ISIDRA QUILAT-QUILAT, and ESTANISLAO
QUILAT-QUILAT, respondents. February 28, 1984

DECISION Direct Examination of 2nd Plaintiffs' witness Ignacio Tomias. Cross-examination

was waived.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
August 21, 1985

Parties who prayed for and were granted several postponements and caused repeated delays cannot
ask for the reopening of the trial for the purpose of presenting additional evidence. After squandering several Plaintiff Pedro Quilat-Quilat was presented on direct examination.
opportunities given them to ventilate their claims, they can no longer complain of alleged violation of their right
to due process.
"On December 16, 1986, the Citizen Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) entered its appearance as new [private
respondents'] counsel after Atty. Gerardo Lituanas has filed his withdrawal. The subsequent events are as
The Case follows:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the October 17, 1997 Decision[1] and the February 23, 1987
March 19, 1998 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA)[3] in CA-GR SP No. 42660. The CA affirmed the
Order of the trial court, which had denied their Motion to Reopen the Case and to allow them to complete the
The case was set for hearing on April 21, 1987.
presentation of their evidence. The assailed Decision disposed as follows:[4]

April 21, 1987

"WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED."

The hearing was reset due to the projected amendment of the

The Resolution denied reconsideration of the challenged Decision.
complainant to implead Primitiva Torrecampo.

The Facts
June 19, 1987

Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao - all surnamed Quilat-Quilat -- filed an action for
The third amended complaint was admitted.
recovery of a parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios, Mauro Jr., Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, Mary
Jean -- all surnamed Edrial -- and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6315
and raffled to Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City.[5] The Court of Appeals September 9, 1987
presented the facts of this case as follows:

Hearing was postponed at the instance of the defendants [herein petitioners].

"Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, a lawyer of the LAPIL (IBP) Negros Oriental, who was also an [e]lection [r]egistrar of
the COMELEC, filed the complaint in 1975;
October 22, 1987

Atty. Lituanas was able to present evidence on the following dates:

The hearing was suspended for the reason that the Court would
require the [private respondents] to submit a certification from the
July 10, 1981 Bureau of Forest Development that the land involved in this case [was]
not a part of the public forest.
First plaintiffs' witness Atilano Ramirez, 73 years old, was presented;
December 17, 1987
July 16, 1981
The hearing was postponed at the request of [private respondents']
counsel for the reason that she [would] be attending [a] conference in
Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez;
Cebu City.

August 24, 1982

March 18, 1988
LEGAL ETHICS - Edrial vs. Quilat-Quilat, G.R. No. 133625. September 6, 2000

The hearing was aborted due to the fact that the Bureau of Forest Atty. Eleccion did not appear. The case [was] submitted for decision as of
Development report ha[d] not yet been finished. th[at] day.

July 5, 1988 August 21, 1992

The hearing [was] reset upon agreement of both counsel. The transcript of stenographic notes which was taken down by
stenographer Alexander Yberley, was missing. He was ordered to
produce the transcript.
September 15, 1988

October 30, 1992

The hearing [was] reset upon the Court's instance.

Witness Atilano Ramirez was recalled for cross-examination since

December 8, 1988 stenographer Yberley manifested that the record was burned. Despite
due notice, nobody appeared for the [petitioners]. So as of this day, the
cross-examination of Atilano Ramirez was considered waived and the
No hearing was held as the certification from the Bureau of Forest
case was finally submitted for decision.
Development [was] being awaited.

December 11, 1992

March 16, 1989

Court granted the prayer of Atty. Sedillo and the case [was] set for
The said certification [was] still being awaited.
hearing on March 22, 29 and April 5 1993.

May 25, 1989

March 22, 1993

The testimony of [Private Respondent] Pedro Quilat-Quilat [was]

Atty. Sedillo did not present evidence but instead moved for a resetting
suspended after a question was [propounded] that would require him
of the hearing to April 12, 1993. He [was] advised by the Court to be
to use reading eyeglasses which he did not have at the moment.
prepared on the next scheduled hearing.

December 14, 1989

June 4, 1993

Hearing [was] reset due to the illness of [private respondents'] counsel.

Judge [was] on leave. Hearing [was] reset to July 2, 1993.

September 20, 1990

July 2, 1993

Atty. Eleccion, [petitioners'] counsel did not appear despite due

Flaviano Umbac was presented as first [petitioners'] witness. Hearing
notice. At this time, the [private respondents] rested their case.
[was] scheduled [for] August 27, 1993.

October 15, 1990

August 27, 1993

Atty. Eleccion [private respondents'] counsel did not appear. Hearing

[Petitioners] moved for a resetting to October 7, 1993.
[was] reset to October 16, 1990.

October 7, 1993
October 16, 1990

Atty. Bongaciso was presented as second witness for the

Atty. Eleccion did not appear. Hearing [was] reset to December 10, 11 and 12.
[petitioners]. His testimony [was] terminated and hearing [was] reset to
December 13, 1993.
December 10, 1990
December 13, 1993
Atty. Eleccion asked for postponement. Hearing [was] reset to December 11,
1990.
Judge [was] on leave. Hearing [was] reset to February 14, 1994.

December 11, 1990

February 14, 1994
LEGAL ETHICS - Edrial vs. Quilat-Quilat, G.R. No. 133625. September 6, 2000

Hearing [was] reset at the instance of Atty. Sedillo who want[ed] to March 16, 1995
recall his witness Atty. Bonganciso. Hearing [was] reset to March 23,
1994.
The Court issued an order reconsidering the February 27, 1995 order
upon motion of Atty. Sedillo and set the case for the [petitioners] for
March 24, 1994 June 16, 1995 with a STERN WARNING TO THE [PETITIONERS].

Hearing [was] postponed to May 6, 1994 to find avenue for settlement. June 16, 1995

May 6, 1994 The hearing set for [this day] was cancelled as the Judge [was] on
leave and reset to September 8, 1995.

Due to the conflict of schedule by Atty. Sedillo and due to the absence
of recalled 2nd [petitioners'] witness Bongaciso, hearing [was] reset to September 8, 1995
June 17, 1994.

The [petitioners'] counsel did not appear. Hearing [was] reset to November 16,
June 17, 1994 1995.

Atty. Sedillo asked for postponement. He [would] attend a Kiwanis November 16, 1995
Training Conference. Hearing [was] reset to July 4, 1994.

The [petitioners'] counsel did not appear. Neither did his client. The
July 4, 1994 hearing [was] reset to February 13, 1996.

Atty. Sedillo was present but Atty. Rosalinda Ybanez [was] available at February 9, 1996
10:00 a.m. so the case [was] reset to August 15, 1994.

The [petitioners'] counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.

August 15, 1994

February 12, 1996

Judge [was] on leave. Hearing [was] reset to October 3, 1994.

The Court issued an order granting the withdrawal of the [petitioners']

October 3, 1994 counsel. The [petitioners were] directed to immediately engage the
services of a new counsel. This notice was received personally by the
wife of [Petitioner] Mauro Edrial, Jr.
The hearing [was] reset to November 17, 1994 due to non-availability
of [petitioners'] witness Atty. Roque Bonganciso who [was] on recall.
February 13, 1996

November 17, 1994

The Court issued an order setting the case [for] April 26, 1996. This
order was received by the wife of the [Petitioner] Mauro Edrial, Jr.
There [was] talk about [a] proposed settlement, hearing [was] held in
abeyance.
April 26, 1996

January 6, 1995
There was no appearance from the [petitioners]. Hence, the case was
submitted for decision for the FOURTH TIME.
Since no settlement [was] realized a [private respondents'] motion to
set [the] case for hearing was filed and the case was reset to
[February] 27, 1995. July 8, 1996

February 27, 1995 Atty. Sedillo filed a motion to reopen the case and in effect reentered his
appearance.

Earlier, [petitioners'] counsel, Atty. Sedillo filed a motion for

postponement as he [would be] appearing in a case in Manila. Atty. August 20, 1996
Ybanez manifested that on February 26, 1995 Atty. Sedillo was in
Dumaguete and further that this case ha[d] been delayed by the failure
of the [petitioners] to complete the presentation of their evidence. The Private respondents thru counsel filed opposition to the motion of the
Court then ordered the case submitted for decision for the THIRD [petitioners].
TIME.
LEGAL ETHICS - Edrial vs. Quilat-Quilat, G.R. No. 133625. September 6, 2000

September 6, 1996 Counsel's excuses are unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The CA ruled that petitioners were given
"more than enough time" to complete their presentation of evidence. Respondents rested their case as early
as September 1992. Petitioners' lawyer, at his own request, was allowed to start presenting evidence only on
The Hon. Judge issued an order denying the motion to reopen hereby April 12, 1993. From that day until April 26, 1996 or for a period of three years, counsel presented only two
affirming the April 26, 1996 order submitting the case for decision. witnesses. The trial judge was in fact liberal in granting petitioners' Motions for Postponement. But enough
was enough; when they attempted to delay the trial some more, the trial judge finally and correctly refused to
go along.
September 11, 1996

True, respondents also asked for continuances, but petitioners were ultimately to blame for the
[Petitioners] filed a motion for reconsideration.
inexcusable delay. The case was submitted for decision three times -- on December 11, 1990, October 30,
1992, and February 27, 1995 - but petitioners and/or their counsel did not appear in court each time. After
October 2, 1996 having failed to take advantage of opportunities to ventilate their claims below, parties may no longer be
accorded the same chances, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, as in this
case.[9]
Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

The Court frowns on lawyers' practice of repeatedly seeking extensions of time to file pleadings and
October 23, 1996 thereafter simply letting the period lapse without submitting any pleading or even any explanation or
manifestation of their failure.[10] The same principle applies more forcefully to motions for
continuance. Postponement is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. Actions thereon will not be
Private respondents received a copy of the Petition for Certiorari."[6] disturbed by appellate courts in the absence of a clear or manifest abuse of discretion, resulting in a denial of
substantial justice.[11] We concur with the CA that there is no such denial in this case.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
It is highly suspicious how the counsel for petitioners continued to represent his clients effectively for
several years despite allegedly having lost their correct addresses. It was definitely his duty to know the
The CA dismissed petitioners' appeal because, in issuing the questioned Orders, the trial judge
correct ones. Indeed, it was too late for him to do so after he had withdrawn as their counsel. According to
committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In giving petitioners more than ample
him, after April 16, 1996, he sent an office employee to verify the whereabouts of Mauro Edrial Jr. The inquiry
time to complete their presentation of evidence and in granting their Motions for Postponement, the judge was
yielded the information that Mauro actually resided in San Jose, Negros Oriental, and that Susan Edrial
accommodating them more than they actually deserved.
Valenzuela resided in Gomez St., Dumaguete City.[12] He should have undertaken the search before
withdrawing as counsel. Further, notice might not have been received by petitioners themselves, but that did
Hence, this Petition.[7] not excuse counsel's failure to appear during trials.

Issues Counsel for petitioners further avers that he had difficulty in presenting Atty. Roque Bonganciso
because of the latter's prior commitments which conflicted with the scheduled trial dates. The last witness was
Mauro Edrial Jr., but counsel had the wrong address on file. He should just have adjusted the order of
Petitioners submit that the CA erred in affirming the twin Orders of the Dumaguete City RTC, Branch presentation of witnesses and called Edrial Jr. later. Such move could have prevented the
39. They contend that a reversal thereof would have allowed them to complete their presentation of postponement. Besides, finding an available date in his calendar would not have taken Atty. Bonganciso three
evidence. Hence, by affirming those Orders, the CA allegedly violated their right to due process.[8] years.

This Court's Ruling The Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, shall not let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for their failure to do so (Rule 12.03).[13]Moreover, they should avoid any action that would unduly
The Petition is without merit. delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes (Rule 12.04).

Main Issue For the benefit of the bench and bar, worth repeating is the CA's reminder to petitioners' counsel of his
duty to his client and to the court:
Due Process and Reopening of Trial
"Being an officer of the court a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court
Counsel for petitioners alleges that the addresses of his clients on file in his law firm were incorrect; itself, he is an instrument to advance its ends-the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive
hence, the notices and other forms of communication he had sent to them were not received. He allegedly adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain these
discovered this fact only after he had filed his withdrawal as their counsel. He also argues that the denial of the objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their
Motion to Reopen Trial was "plainly capricious and oppressive" because private respondents were equally realization, charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of
guilty of delay and procrastination. Finally, he maintains that allowing petitioners to present their remaining justice."[14]
evidence would be "in the interest of substantial due process and humane justice."
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs
Respondents disagree, reasoning that the trial court thrice reconsidered its Order to submit the case for against the petitioners.
decision; that is, petitioners were given several opportunities to present their evidence, but they squandered
them. Petitioners, they further point out, were intentionally seeking to delay the resolution of the case because SO ORDERED.
they were in physical possession of the land in dispute.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

LEGAL ETHICS - Edrial vs. Quilat-Quilat, G.R. No. 133625. September 6, 2000