MARILEN G. SOLIMAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, Respondent. Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canons 17 and 18.
FACTS:
Complainant claimed that she engaged the services of respondent in connection with a partition case. She agreed to pay the respondent P50,000 as acceptance fee. Later on, respondent advised the complainant to no longer institute a partition case since the other co-owners of the property were amenable to the partition thereof. Respondent then told complainant that some from the RD can help expedite the issuance of the titles for a fee of P50,000. Complainant then deposited the amount of P8,900 to respondent’s bank account as payment for the real property tax and the amount of P50,000 as payment for the latter’s contact with the RD. Respondent failed to deliver the certificates of tile. Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent for violation of the CPR. The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found respondent to have violated the CPR by failing to observe due diligence in dealing with the complainant and recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the CBD’s recommendation, albeit with a modification that the period of suspension was increased to two (2) years and that she was ordered to return the entire amount she received from the complainant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Amboy violated the CPR.
RULING:
Yes.
The CPR clearly states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with competence and diligence; to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and to keep his client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy, after receiving payment for her professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual owners of the property. It was her negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title. To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked from Soliman the amount of P50,000.00 to be paid to her “contact” inside the office of the RD in order to facilitate the release of the said certificates of title. Further, notwithstanding the payment of P50,000.00, Atty. Amboy still failed to obtain issuance of the said certificates of title. In not returning the money to Soliman after a demand therefor was made following her
TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y. 2014-2015)
failure to procure the issuance of the certificates of title, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client upon demand. It is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
3. A.C. No. 8235 January 27, 2015
JOSELITO F. TEJANO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA, Respondent. Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 18.
FACTS:
Complainant filed a civil case against the Province of Ilocos Sur for recovery of possession of a strip of land. The lot was wholly owned by Tejano’s family but the Province of Ilocos Sur constructed an access road without instituting the proper expropriation proceedings. The case was raffled off to Branch 21 of RTC Vigan in 1988. Judge Arquelada was one of the trial prosecutors assigned to Branch 21 representing the Province of Ilocos Sur. In 2001, he became the branch’s presiding judge. The civil case was later on dismissed.
In his affidavit-complaint, complainant accused Judge Arquelada of colluding with the former’s own counsel, the herein respondent, in Judge Arquelada’s bid to take possession of the property.
The CBD found that respondent manifestly failed to properly inform the RTC that his failure to appear in representation of his client was due to his two-year suspension from the practice of law. The CBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, and be fined in the amount of P50,000, considering that this is his second disciplinary action. The IBP-B adopted and approved CBD’s recommendation with modification (deleted the fine).
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Baterina violated the CPR.
RULING:
Yes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of lawyers states:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y. 2014-2015)
RULE 18.03 -A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
RULE 18.04 -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. Lawyers have a fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, and must act in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR.
Atty. Baterina's duty to his clients did not automatically cease with his suspension. At the very least, such suspension gave him a concomitant responsibility to inform his clients that he would be unable to attend to their case and advise them to retain another counsel. A lawyer -even one suspended from practicing the profession -owes it to his client to not "sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty." The client "should never be left groping in the dark" and instead must be "adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case.
The Court notes that in 2001, Atty. Baterina was also suspended for two years after being found guilty of gross misconduct. In that case, Araceli Sipin-Nabor filed a complaint against Atty. Baterina for failing to file her Answer with Counterclaim in a case for quieting of title and recovery of possession where she and her siblings were defendants. Because of such failure, Sipin-Nabor was declared by the trial court to be in default and unable to present her evidence, and which, in turn, resulted in a decision adverse to her.
Atty. Baterina was also found to have "converted the money of his client to his own personal use without her consent" and "deceived the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used for filing an answer with counterclaim," which he never did.
The Court likewise noted in that case Atty. Baterina's "repeated failure to comply with the resolutions of the Court requiring him to comment on the complaint [which] indicates a high degree of irresponsibility tantamount to willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.
These two disciplinary cases against Atty. Baterina show a pattern of neglecting his duty to his clients, as well as a propensity for disrespecting the authority of the courts. Such incorrigible behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated among members of the Bar. For this reason, the Court deems it proper to impose on Atty. Baterina a longer suspension period of five (5) years.