EN BANC
A.C. No. 6424 March 4, 2005
CONSORCIA S. ROLLON, Complainant,
vs.
Atty. CAMILO NARAVAL, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. The latter’s money or other property coming into the former’s possession should be deemed to be held in trust and should not under any circumstance be commingled with the lawyers’ own; much less, used by them. Failure to observe these ethical principles constitutes professional misconduct and justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
The Case and the Facts
Before us is a letter-complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval, filed by Consorcia S. Rollon with the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on November 29, 2001. The Affidavit1 submitted by complainant alleges the following:
"Sometime in October of 2000, I went to the office of Atty. Camilo F. Naraval together with my son, Freddie Rollon, to seek his assistance in a case filed against me before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 6, Davao City entitled ‘Rosita Julaton vs. Consorcia S. Rollon’ for Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer for Attachment;
"After going over the documents I brought with me pertaining to the said case, Atty. Naraval agreed to be my lawyer and I was required to pay the amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (Php 8,000.00) for the filing and partial service fee, which amount was paid by me on October 18, 2000, a copy of the Official Receipt is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’ to form part hereof;
"As per the instruction of Atty. Naraval, my son, Freddie, returned to his office the following week to make follow-up on said case. However, I was informed later by my son Freddie that Atty. Naraval was not able to act on my case because the latter was so busy. Even after several follow-ups were made with Atty. Naraval, still there was no action done on our case;
"Sometime in November 29, 2001, I decided to withdraw the amount I paid to Atty. Naraval, because of the latter’s failure to comply with our mutual agreement that he will assist me in the above-mentioned case;
"My son Freddie Rollon went to Atty. Naraval’s office that same day to inform Atty. Naraval of our decision to withdraw the amount I have paid and to retrieve my documents pertaining to said case. Unfortunately, despite our several follow-ups, Atty. Naraval always said that he cannot return the documents because they were in their house, and that he could not give us back the amount we paid him (Php 8,000.00) because he has no money;
"Having failed to obtain any response, I decided to refer the matter to Atty. Ramon Edison Batacan, IBP President of Davao City and to Atty. Pedro Castillo, the Commissioner on Bar D[i]scipline;
x x x x x x x x x."
In an Order dated March 12, 2002,2 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Director Victor C. Fernandez, directed respondent to submit his answer to the Complaint. The same directive was reiterated in the CBD’s May 31, 2002 Order3 issued through Commissioner Jovy C. Bernabe. Respondent did not file any answer despite his receipt of the Orders.4
Not having heard from him despite adequate notice, the CBD proceeded with the investigation ex parte. Its Order5 dated November 11, 2002, issued through Commissioner Bernabe, required complainant to submit her position paper within ten days from receipt thereof, after which the case was to be deemed submitted for resolution.
The CBD received complainant’s Position Paper6 on December 10, 2002.
Report of the Investigating Commissioner
In his Report and Recommendation dated October 16, 2003, Investigating Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Report reads in part as follows:
"Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable x x x.
"In the case at bar, the deplorable conduct of the respondent in misrepresenting to the complainant that he will render legal services to her, and after receiving certain amount from the latter as payment for ‘filing fee and service fee’ did nothing in return, has caused unnecessary dishonor to the bar. By his own conduct the respect of the community to the legal profession, of which he swore to protect, has been tarnished.
x x x x x x x x x
"In fact, complainant claimed to have been shortchanged by the respondent when he failed to properly appraised her of the status of her case which she later on found to have become final and executory. Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and the complainant have been decided against the latter and which judgment has long become final and executory. However, despite full knowledge by the respondent of such finality based on the documents furnished to him, respondent withheld such vital information and did not properly appraise the complainant. Thus, respondent violated the mandate in Canon 15 x x x."7
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution
On February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVI-2004-64 upholding the above-quoted Report. The Board recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years for violation of Rules 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the restitution of complainant’s P8,000.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
Respondent’s Administrative Liability
Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish to become their client.8 They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively or competently.9 But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.10
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause.11 Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance.12 The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states:
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can efficiently handle.13 Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. Once lawyers agree to handle a case, they should undertake the task with dedication and care. If they do any less, then they fail their lawyer’s oath.14
The circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, respondent failed to render any legal service in relation to the case of complainant. His continuous inaction despite repeated followups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward his client’s cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably failed to return to her the files of the case that had been entrusted to him. To top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him.
Furthermore, after going through her papers, respondent should have given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits and the status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and complainant had been decided against the latter. In fact, the judgment had long become final and executory. But he withheld such vital information from complainant. Instead, he demanded P8,000 as "filing and service fee" and thereby gave her hope that her case would be acted upon.
Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers give their candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor understating their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of success is not only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.15 If they find that their client’s cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible.16 The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty to "observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients."17
Likewise, as earlier pointed out, respondent persistently refused to return the money of complainant despite her repeated demands. His conduct was clearly indicative of lack of integrity and moral soundness; he was clinging to something that did not belong to him, and that he absolutely had no right to keep or use.18
Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their client’s money and property that may come into their possession.19 As respondent obviously did nothing on the case of complainant, the amount she had given -- as evidenced by the receipt issued by his law office -- was never applied to the filing fee. His failure to return her money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had converted it to his own use and thereby betrayed the trust she had reposed in him.20 His failure to do so constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.21
The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the courts,22 but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.23 Respondent clearly fell short of the demands required of him as a member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge his duty to his client makes him answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, to the legal profession, and to the general public.24 Given the crucial importance of his role in the administration of justice, his misconduct diminished the confidence of the public in the integrity and dignity of the profession.25
WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision, complainant’s eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid. Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, as well as the National Office and the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Carpio-Morales, J., on leave.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, p. 5.
2 Id., p. 15.
3 Id., p. 18.
4 The March 12, 2002 Order was received on March 27, 2002; and the May 31, 2002 Order, on June 6, 2002. See Registry Return Receipt attached to the Orders.
5 Rollo, p. 19.
6 Id., pp. 20-24.
7 Report and Recommendation filed on June 3, 2004, pp. 5-7.
8 Cuizon v. Macalino, AC No. 4334, July 7, 2004; De Juan v. Baria III, AC No. 5817, May 27, 2004.
9 See Rule 18.01, Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides in part. "A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. x x x."
10 Fernandez v. Cabrera II, AC No. 5623, December 11, 2003.
11 Pariñas v. Paguinto, AC No. 6297, July 13, 2004; Fernandez v. Cabrera II, supra; Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, 399 SCRA 296, March 20, 2003.
12 Schulz v. Flores, AC No. 4219, December 8, 2003 (citing In re: Atty. David Briones, 415 Phil. 203, August 15, 2001; Santiago v. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68, September 7, 1995).
13 Pariñas v. Paguinto, supra; Moton v. Atty. Cadiao, 377 Phil. 1, November 24, 1999.
14 The Lawyer’s Oath declares in part: "x x x I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God." See §3, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
15 Agpalo, Legal Ethics (1992, 5th ed.), p. 152.
16 Castañeda v. Ago, 65 SCRA 505, July 30, 1975.
17 Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility.
18 See Igual v. Javier, 324 Phil. 698, March 7, 1996.
19 Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility; Barnachea v. Quiocho, 399 SCRA 1, March 11, 2003.
20 Schulz v. Flores, supra; Barnachea v. Quiocho, supra; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419, June 28, 2001.
21 Barnachea v. Quiocho, supra; Burbe v. Magulta, 383 SCRA 276, June 10, 2002; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina, supra; Gonato v. Adaza, 385 Phil. 426, March 27, 2000.
22 "CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes."
23 Berbano v. Barcelona, 410 SCRA 258, September 3, 2003; Igual v. Javier, supra.
24 Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, supra.
25 Grande v. De Silva, 407 SCRA 310, July 29, 2003.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
