THIRD DIVISION
|
Complainant, - versus - ATTY. OSCAR AMANDY REYES, Respondent. |
A.C.
No. 6121
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 31,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
us is a Letter-Complaint[1] filed
by complainant Trinidad H. Camara against respondent Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes.
Sometime
in 2003, complainant hired the services of respondent to handle her case. As partial acceptance fee, respondent
received from complainant P50,000.00 evidenced by a receipt[2]
placed on his calling card. Respondent,
however, took no steps to protect complainant’s interest. As no service was rendered by respondent,
complainant asked that he return the amount given him so that she could use it
in repairing her house. Respondent
offered that he would take charge of repairing the house. Yet, he again failed to fulfill his promise,
which prompted the complainant to reiterate her demand for the return of the
money.[3] As respondent failed to give back the amount
demanded, complainant initiated the instant case.
In
his Answer, respondent prayed that the case be closed and terminated, simply
because the matter has already been resolved by all the parties concerned. He added that complainant went to his office
and explained that she signed the letter-complaint not knowing that it was
against respondent, as she was made to believe that it was a complaint against
her neighbor.[4]
Complainant
and respondent failed to attend the mandatory conference; and to submit their
respective position papers.
On
In
his Report and Recommendation, IBP Commissioner
There
is proof that respondent receipted the amount of Php50,000.00 in his own
handwriting. Even his calling card was
given to the complainants.
Canon
16, Rule 16.01 provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
or received for or from the client.
Canon
18, Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Canon
18, Rule 18.04 provides that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client’s
request for information.
Using
the above yardsticks, clearly the respondent is liable and failed to live [up]
to [the] above mentioned standards.
While
it is true that complainant Trinidad Camara allegedly executed an affidavit,
the same will not save the respondent.
As
a general rule, disbarment proceeding shall not be interrupted or terminated by
reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of
the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute unless the Court motu
proprio determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the
disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent.
We
reiterate that the respondent did not traverse the charges against him. He simply wanted this case to be closed and
terminated allegedly because he and Mrs. Camara had already resolved their
problem and the latter’s son, who also signed the letter-complaint as
attorney-in-fact has no authority to do so.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it [is] most respectfully recommended that the respondent
be suspended for six (6) months from the active practice of law.[6]
In
its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-522, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the report and recommendation of the investigating Commissioner, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution a[s] Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for respondent’s violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
We agree with the
foregoing recommendation.
The Court notes that despite
the opportunity accorded to respondent to refute the charges against him, he failed
to do so or even offer a valid explanation.[7]
It is incumbent upon respondent to meet the issue and overcome the evidence
against him. He must show proof that he
still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is
expected of him. These, respondent
miserably failed to do.[8]
The record is bereft of
any evidence to show that respondent has presented any countervailing evidence
to dispute the charges against him. In
his answer, he did not even deny complainant’s allegations. He only prayed that the case be closed and
terminated, simply because the problem with complainant had already been
resolved.
The alleged compromise
between complainant and respondent is not enough to exonerate the latter from
the present disciplinary case. A case of
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the interest or lack of
interest of the complainant. What
matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the
charge of negligence has been duly proved.[9]
Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for
the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from
the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court
for his conduct as an officer of the court.
The complainant is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in
the outcome of the case.[10]
This is also the reason why this Court
may investigate charges against lawyers regardless of complainant’s standing.[11]
When respondent accepted
the amount of P50,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he
agreed to take up the latter’s case, and that an attorney-client relationship
between them was established. From then on, it was expected that he would serve
his client, herein complainant, with competence, and attend to her cause with
fidelity, care and devotion.[12]
The act of receiving
money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainant’s case and
subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence.[13]
Specifically, Rule 18.03
states:
A lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
A member of the legal
profession owes his client entire devotion to the latter’s genuine interest, and
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. An attorney is expected to exert his best
efforts and ability to preserve his client’s cause, for the unwavering loyalty
displayed to his client, likewise, serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice
law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also
to the court, to the bar and to the public.[14]
The fiduciary duty of a
lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of
trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed,
the faith of the people, not only in the individual lawyer but also in the
legal profession as a whole, is eroded.
To this end, all members of the bar are strictly required at all times
to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty
and integrity of their profession.[15]
The factual antecedents
in Reyes v. Vitan[16]
and Sencio v. Atty. Calvadores[17]
bear a striking similarity to the present case.
In Reyes, complainant engaged
the services of respondent lawyer for the purpose of filing the appropriate complaint
or charges against the former’s sister-in-law and the latter’s niece. After receiving the amount of P17,000.00,
respondent did not take any action on complainant’s case. In Sencio,
complainant therein, likewise, engaged the services of Atty. Calvadores to
prosecute the civil aspect of the case in relation to the death of her son in a
vehicular accident. The total amount of P12,000.00
was duly acknowledged and received by respondent as attorney’s fees. Despite repeated assurances by respondent,
complainant discovered that the former had not filed any case on her behalf.
In both cases, we
suspended the respondent lawyers for a period of six (6) months. Thus, we impose the same penalty on
respondent herein, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-522 of the IBP Board of Governors is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes is
hereby SUSPENDED for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.
Let copies of this
Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-7.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Citations omitted; Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner, p. 3.
[7] Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Espiritu,
A.C. No. 5542, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 420, 429; Rangwani v. Dino, A.C. No. 5454, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 408,
415.
[8] Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Espiritu, supra; Rangwani v. Dino, supra..
[9] Soriano v. Reyes, A.C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 328, 338-339; Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 310, 318.
[10] Soriano v. Reyes, supra; Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, .supra.
[11] Cojuangco,
Jr. v.
.
[12] Reyes v. Vitan, A.C. No. 5835, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 87, 90.
[13] Reyes v. Vitan, supra; Sencio v. Atty. Calvadores, 443 Phil. 490, 494 (2003).
[14] Reyes v. Vitan, supra.
[15] Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Espiritu, supra note 7; Rangwani v. Dino, supra note 7, at 419.
[16] A.C. No. 5835, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 87.
[17] 443 Phil. 490 (2003).