Republic of the
Supreme Court
ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON,
Complainant, -
versus
- ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD,
Respondent. |
A.C. No. 8158
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
ABAD, and
PEREZ, JJ.
Promulgated: February 24, 2010 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
In a verified
complaint[1] before the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
The Facts
Atty.
Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Regional
Office 8,
While on
official visit to P80,000.00),
Atty. Macalalad accepted the task to be completed within a period of eight (8)
months. Atty. Macalalad received Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon
received the certificate of title to the property.
Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for registration over the property sought to be titled up to the present time.
In the Complaint, Position Papers[5] and documentary evidence submitted, Atty. Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty. Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees. He did this through phone calls and text messages to their known acquaintances and relatives, and, finally, through a letter sent by courier to Atty. Macalalad. However, he did not receive any communication from Atty. Macalalad.
In the Answer,[6] Position Paper,[7] and affidavits of witnesses, Atty. Macalalad posited that the delay in the filing of the petition for the titling of the property was caused by his clients’ failure to communicate with him. He also explained that he had no intention of reneging on his obligation, as he had already prepared the draft of the petition. He failed to file the petition simply because he still lacked the needed documentary evidence that his clients should have furnished him. Lastly, Atty. Macalalad denied that Atty. Solidon tried to communicate with him.
The Findings of the IBP
In his Report
and Recommendation dated
…complainant
submitted in his position paper the affidavit of Flordeliz Cabo-Borata, the
mutual acquaintance of both complainant and respondent. In the said affidavit,
Mrs. Cabo-Borata described how she repeatedly followed-up the matter with
respondent and how respondent turned a deaf ear towards the same. There is
nothing on record which would prompt this Office to view the allegations
therein with caution. In fact, considering that the allegations corroborate the
undisputed facts of the instant case...
As
respondent has failed to duly present any reasonable excuse for the non-filing
of the application despite the lapse of about a year from the time his services
were engaged, it is plain that his negligence in filing the application remains
uncontroverted. And such negligence is contrary to the mandate prescribed in
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which enjoins
a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. In fact, Rule 18.03
even provides that his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Acting on this
recommendation, the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
passed Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 dated
RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with
modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case,
herein made part of this Resolution … and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
considering Respondent’s violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months and Ordered
to Return the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) with 12% interest
per annum to complainant …
The case is now before this Court for our final action
pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, considering that
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline imposed the penalty of suspension on Atty.
Macalalad.
The Court’s
Ruling
We agree with the IBP’s factual findings
and legal conclusions.
In
administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance
of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge.[8]
We fully considered the evidence
presented and we are fully satisfied that the complainant’s evidence, as
outlined above, fully satisfies the required quantum of proof in proving Atty.
Macalalad’s negligence.
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the rule on negligence and states:
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the
mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is
considered per se a violation.
Thus, in Villafuerte
v. Cortez,[9] we
held that a lawyer is negligent if he failed to do anything to protect his
client’s interest after receiving his acceptance fee. In In Re: Atty. Briones,[10]
we ruled that the failure of the
counsel to submit the required brief within the reglementary period (to the
prejudice of his client who languished in jail for more than a year) is an
offense that warrants disciplinary action. In Garcia
v. Atty. Manuel, we penalized a lawyer for failing to inform the client
of the status of the case, among other matters.[11]
Subsequently,
in Reyes v. Vitan,[12] we reiterated that the
act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the complainant’s
case and, subsequently, in failing to render the services, is a clear violation
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. We
made the same conclusion in Canoy v. Ortiz[13] where we
emphatically stated that the lawyer’s failure to file the position paper was per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The
circumstance that the client was also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from
liability for his negligence in handling a case. In Canoy,
we accordingly declared that the lawyer cannot shift the blame to his client
for failing to follow up on his case because it was the lawyer’s duty to inform
his client of the status of the case.[14] Our rulings in Macarilay v.
Seriña,[15]
in Heirs of Ballesteros v. Apiag,[16] and in Villaflores
v. Limos[17] were of the same tenor. In Villaflores, we opined that
even if the client has been equally at fault for the lack of communication, the
main responsibility remains with the lawyer to inquire and know the best means
to acquire the required information. We
held that as between the client and his lawyer, the latter has more control in
handling the case.
All these rulings drive home the fiduciary nature of a lawyer’s duty to
his client once an engagement for legal services is accepted. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the
responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence.[18] The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client
with competence and diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within
the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her client.[19] Accordingly, competence, not only in the
knowledge of law, but also in the management of the cases by giving these cases
appropriate attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer.[20]
The records in this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to act as he committed when he failed to file the required petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since it was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. At any rate, we reject Atty. Macalalad’s defense that it was his clients who failed to contact him. Although no previous communication transpired between Atty. Macalalad and his clients, the records nevertheless show that Atty. Solidon, who contracted Atty. Macalalad’s services in behalf of his relatives, tried his best to reach him prior to the filing of the present disbarment case. Atty. Solidon even enlisted the aid of Ms. Cabo-Borata to follow-up on the status of the registration application with Atty. Macalalad.
As narrated by Ms. Cabo-Borata in her affidavit,[21] she succeeded several times in getting in touch with Atty. Macalalad and on those occasions asked him about the progress of the case. To use Ms. Cabo-Borata’s own words, she received “no clear-cut answers from him”; he just informed her that everything was “on process.” We give credence to these narrations considering Atty. Macalalad’s failure to contradict them or deny their veracity, in marked contrast with his vigorous denial of Atty. Solidon’s allegations.
We consider, too, that other motivating factors – specifically, the monetary consideration and the fixed period of performance – should have made it more imperative for Atty. Macalalad to promptly take action and initiate communication with his clients. He had been given initial payment and should have at least undertaken initial delivery of his part of the engagement.
We further find that Atty. Macalalad’s conduct refutes his claim of willingness to perform his obligations. If Atty. Macalalad truly wanted to file the petition, he could have acquired the necessary information from Atty. Solidon to enable him to file the petition even pending the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline investigation. As matters now stand, he did not take any action to initiate communication. These omissions unequivocally point to Atty. Macalalad’s lack of due care that now warrants disciplinary action.
In addition to
the above finding of negligence, we also find Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account
for all the money received from the client. In this case, Atty. Macalalad did not
immediately account for and promptly return the money he received from Atty.
Solidon even after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time
of the engagement.[22]
The Penalty
Based on these considerations, we modify the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline’s recommended penalty by increasing the period of Atty. Macalalad’s suspension from the practice of law from three (3) months, to six (6) months.[23] In this regard, we follow the Court’s lead in Pariñas v. Paguinto[24] where we imposed on the respondent lawyer suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.01 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATION Resolution
No. XVIII-2008-336 dated
Atty. Macalalad
is also ORDERED to RETURN to Atty. Elmer C. Solidon the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with interest of twelve
percent (12%) per annum from the date
of promulgation of this Decision until the full amount is returned.
Let copies
of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and noted in Atty. Macalalad’s record as a member of the
Bar.
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
MARIANO
C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO
A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
JOSE
Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2] A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
[3] A lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
[4] A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
[5] Rollo, pp. 77-81.
[6]
[7]
[8]
Asa v. Castillo, A.C. No. 6501,
[9] A.C.
No. 3455,
[10]
A.C. No. 5486,
[11] 443 Phil. 479, 486 (2003).
[12] 496 Phil. 1, 4 (2005).
[13]
A.C. No. 5485,
[14]
[15] 497 Phil 348, 360 (2005), cited in Heirs of Ballesteros v. Apiag, A.C. No. 5760, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 111, 123.
[16] A.C. No. 5760, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 111, 123.
[17]
A.C. No. 7504,
[18] Enriquez v.
[19]
[20] Ibid.
[21] Rollo, pp. 82-83.
[22] Villanueva v. Atty. Gonzales, A.C. No. 7657,
[23] Dizon v. Laurente, A.C. No. 6597,
[24] 478 Phil. 239, 247 (2004).