Garayblas vs Ong

Nature: Petition for holding counsels of the accused liable for their non-appearance in the scheduled pre-trial
conferences

Facts:
 Atty. Garayblas and Atty. Dela Cruz, as petitioners, are counsels for Gen. Ramiscal who is facing charges
for falsification of public documents and violation of RA 3019 before several divisions of the
Sandiganbayan (SB)
 Accused was arraigned and the SB 4th Division set the pre-trial for April 6, 2006 in Davao City
 On Feb. 28, 2006, the Clerk of Court sent a Notice of Hearing to all the parties, informing the cancellation
of the April 6, 2006 pre-trial hearing and the resetting to April 27, 2006
 Atty. Garayblas opposed the resetting to April 27 and filed a Motion to Reset
 SB 4th Division denied the motion stating that Atty. Garayblas and Associates must adjust their schedule
to suit all the other accused and their counsels, who are available for that date
 Petitioners failed to appear for pre-trial on April 27, 2006, hence the SB 4th Div. ordered them to explain
why they should not be held in contempt
 Atty. Garayblas reasoned that:
o The day before the pre-trial, she was having severe headache, body weakness, and sluggishness
o Her blood sugar count was 420 and her blood pressure was 170/140
o Thus, she opted to stay home and follow instructions by her doctor, Dr. Garayblas-Gonzaga
o She was requested to administer insulin every 6 hrs
o Her condition did not disappear til the day of the pre-trial, thus, she was not able to attend it
 Atty. Dela Cruz reasoned that:
o He did not attend the pre-trial because he had to appear before the SB 2nd Div. in another
criminal case involving the same accused, attaching a certificate of appearance from the 2nd Div.
as proof
 The SB 4th Div issued the first assailed Order stating that:
o The Court does not find their excuse satisfactory
o That they belongs to the same law office, therefore, one or the other should have appeared or
made the necessary arrangement to let one of their associates appear in the pre-trial conference
o Atty. Dela Cruz should have been more prudent in the scheduling of his cases in order to avoid
conflict of schedule, and should have given more priority to the out-of-town schedule
considering the expenses for out of town hearings
o With the modern means of communication, Atty. Garayblas should have made arrangements
with her co-counsel or other members of her law office, while noting the absence of a medical
certificate
o Thus, they were held liable for their non-appearance which caused the cancellation of the pre-
trial conference
o They were ordered to pay P10,000 each as penalty and to partially answer the traveling and
other expenses of the Court
 Petitioners moved for reconsideration:
o Atty. Garayblas reasoned, among other things, her illness, that records show that except for her
non-appearance at the pre-trial, she had never been absent in all the proceedings of the 4th
Division, and that there were no other lawyers from their office who could attend the pre-trial
in Davao
o Atty. Dela Cruz reiterated that in their agreement, Atty. Garayblas would be assigned for the
Davao pre-trial, and that he was assigned to appear before the SB 2nd Division
 The SB 4th Div denied their motion, hence the present case for certiorari
Issue:
Should Atty. Garayblas and Atty. Dela Cruz be held liable for their non-appearances in the scheduled pre-trial
conference?

Ruling:
 NO.
 The court may sanction or penalize counsel for the accused if the ff concur:
1. Counsel does not appear at the pre-trial conference; AND
2. Counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse
 For Atty. Garablas, the SB 4th Div already said it believed her claim. Symptoms of hypertension include
confusion, ear noise or buzzing, fatigue, headache, irregular heartbeat, and vision changes. As for
hyperglycemia, it includes headaches, increased thirst, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, frequent
urinating, and fatigue, among others.
 Verily, the Court can understand that a person suffering from confusion, difficulty in concentrating,
blurred vision, fatigue, and others, would be hard put to attend a hearing, much less have the clarity of
mind to think or worry about finding another lawyer to substitute for her. Indeed it would not be
reasonable to expect her to have been able to make necessary arrangements for another lawyer to
attend in her stead.
 Consider, further, the importance of having counsel who is the most well-versed on the facts of the case,
to be the one attending a pre-trial conference. It is not quite prudent to send in a new lawyer, who has
not had ample time to fully familiarize himself with the facts and issues involved in the case, to attend a
pre-trial conference
 Moreover, she had never been absent for a hearing before the SB 4th Div. This circumstance should be
taken in her favor, as it shows she is not in the habit of feigning illness
 However, Atty. Garayblas should have at least sent word to the SB 4th Division and to her co-counsel,
Atty. Dela Cruz, when she began feeling the symptoms, that she would be unable to attend said pre-trial
conference. This would have been the courteous thing to do.
 With regard to Atty. Dela Cruz, his non-appearance was also excusable. There were hearings for their
client’s case in 2 separate division of the SB on the very same date in 2 distant locations. To ensure
representation for their client at the hearings in both divisions of the SB, petitioners agreed that Atty.
Dela Cruz would attend the one before the 2nd Div., while Atty. Garayblas would attend the one before
the SB 4th Div in Davao. It appears that Atty. Dela Cruz was not fully apprised of the fact that his co-
counsel would not be able to attend the pre-trial conference. It is understandable why Atty. Dela Cruz
could not have abandoned the hearing before the 2nd Div so he could attend the pre-trial in Davao. It
was already too late in the day for Atty. Dela Cruz to change plans and to notify the 2nd Div that he would
be absent so he could attend the pre-trial in Davao