Somosot v Lara

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA

A.C. No. 7024, 577 SCRA 93, January 30, 2009

BRION, J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment.

Facts:

The complainant alleged that she retained the services of the respondent as her counsel in case filed
against her and her co-defendants for the collection of a sum of money amounting to P1.3 Million. Her
defense was that it was the plaintiff who actually owed her P800, 000.00. She claimed that she had the
evidence to prove this defense at the trial and that respondent agreed to handle the case and duly
entered his appearance as counsel after securing his acceptance fee. However, after filing the Answer to
the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully inform her of further developments in the case. She only
heard about the case when there was already a decision against her and her co-defendants. She even
belatedly learned that the respondent had sought his discharge as counsel without her knowledge and
consent. After the court denied the respondent's motion to withdraw from the case, the complainant
claimed that the respondent represented her interests in a half-hearted manner, resulting in the grant
of the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Allegedly, the respondent failed to properly
oppose the motion and she was thereafter deprived of the chance to present her evidence. Execution of
the court's decision followed, resulting in the sale of her house and lot at public auction despite her
efforts to reverse the judgment with the help of another lawyer. Thereafter, a third party to whom her
property had been mortgaged sued her.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that “"a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." First,
the respondent failed to contact his client about the developments of the case. Second, assuming the
non-payment of his legal services to be true, such failure should not be a reason not to inform the client
of an important development, or worse, to withhold vital information from her. Third, the respondent
failed to provide details on the developments that led to the adverse rulings on the
interrogatories/admissions and the judgment on the pleadings. However, the Supreme Court cannot
also disbar the respondent as the complainant demands in light of the complainant's own contributory
faults. The complainant's failing in this regard is her failure to inform her counsel of her change of
business address, a serious lapse but one that a resourceful counsel could have easily handled.

Adjudication:

Atty. Gerardo F. Lara is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.

Soriano vs Reyes 489 scra 328 may 4 2006

2 cases

Later, complainants learned that Civil Case No. 20-465-90 was dismissed[4] on 16
December 1991 for failure of the respondent to file a pre-trial brief. The dismissal
reads:
As to Civil Case No. 22-674-94, complainants likewise found out that the case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Looking into the merits of the complaint against respondent, we decide to modify the findings of the
IBP.

As to Civil Case No. 20-465-90, records show that it was dismissed for failure of respondent to file the
pre-trial brief.

Respondents failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable negligence.[18] The importance of
filing a pre-trial brief cannot be gainsaid. For one, the lawyers are compelled to prepare their cases in
advance. They eliminate haphazard preparation. Since pre-trial is a serious business of the court,
preparation of the lawyers and parties for the pre-trial in both questions of fact and of law cannot be
overemphasized as an essential requirement for a pre-trial conference. They enable both parties to view
the documentary evidence of the other even before they are presented in court. They enable the parties
to know the testimonies of each others witnesses. Pre-trial briefs also apprise the courts of the
additional points the parties are willing to stipulate upon, or the additional points which could be
inquired into for the purpose of additional stipulations. They also apprise the court of the respective
demands of the parties, thus, enabling the court to discuss more intelligently an amicable settlement
between or among the parties.[19] The failure to submit a pre-trial brief could very well, then, be fatal
to the case of the client as in fact it is a ground for dismissal of the case. [20] For this reason,
respondents failure to submit the pre-trial brief to the court within the given period constitutes
negligence which entails disciplinary action. Not only is it a dereliction of duty to his client but to the
court as well.

Quite apart from the above, respondent also lacked candor in dealing with his clients as he omitted to
apprise complainants of the status of the two cases and even assured the complainants that he was
diligently attending to said cases.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Reynaldo Reyes is found GUILTY of violating
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one (1) year effective upon finality hereof with WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act
charged in this complaint will be dealt with more severely.

FEDERICO N. RAMOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. PATRICIO A. NGASEO, respondent.

This is a complaint for suspension of respondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Article 1491 of the Civil Code by demanding from his client, complainant
Federico N. Ramos, the delivery of 1,000 square meters of land, a litigated property, as payment for his
appearance fees.

In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of the property in litigation since the respondent only
made a written demand for its delivery which the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for
delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibited
transaction within the contemplation of Article 1491. Even assuming arguendo that such demand for
delivery is unethical, respondents act does not fall within the purview of Article 1491. The letter of
demand dated January 29, 2003 was made long after the judgment in Civil Case No. SCC-2128 became
final and executory on January 18, 2002.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo is found guilty of conduct
unbecoming a member of the legal profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of Canon 20 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a warning that repetition of the same act will be
dealt with more severely.

Neglect of Duties – Failure to Account

In 2005, Atty. Elmer Solidon engaged the services of Atty. Ramil Macalalad for the latter to
handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by the Solidons in Borongan, Samar. They
agreed for a fee of P80k. Solidon gave P50k as downpayment to Macalalad and the remaining
P30k shall be paid after Solidon shall receive the title over the said property.
But for 6 months after the P50k was given, Atty. Macalalad never gave an update to Solidon.
It turns out that Macalalad never filed any petition to register the land.
Solidon then filed an administrative case against Macalalad. Solidon alleged that Macalalad
neglected his duties and even avoided talking to him despite efforts from Solidon to
communicate with Macalalad.
In his defense, Macalalad averred that he did not file the petition because Solidon failed to
update him and that Solidon never gave the documents he was asking for.
Eventually, the Commission on Bar Discipline recommended Macalalad to be suspended for
three months.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Macalalad should be suspended.
HELD: Yes. Macalalad is guilty of negligence when he neglected his client’s cause. This is a
violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
negligent if he failed to do anything to protect his client’s interest after receiving his
acceptance fee. Further, there is also negligence when he failed to update his client about
the status of the case.
Even if assuming that Solidon was also negligent, Macalalad 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. 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. The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for
legal services in handling Solidon’s case, and subsequently failing, without valid excuse, to
render the services, is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The Supreme Court also found that not only did Macalalad violated Canon 18, he also violated
Canon 16 when he failed to account for Solidon’s money. It appears he failed to return
Solidon’s downpayment of P50k. A lawyer, when he fails to render legal services, shall
immediately account for and promptly return the money he received from his client. Hence,
on top of the recommended 3 months suspension, Macalald was suspended for an additional
3 months or for a total of 6 months.
Junio v Grupo

Facts:

Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the redemption of a property in
Bohol. For no reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property so the property was forfeited.
Because of this, Junio wanted the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo requested
that he use the money to help defray his children’s educational expenses. It was a personal request to
which Grupo executed a PN. He maintains that the family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since
Junio’s sisters served as Grupo’s household helpers for many years. Grupo also stated that the basis of
his rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a friend” with “consideration
involved.” He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between them.

The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Profesisonal Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients. The IBP
Board of Governors recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Grupo
filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.

Held:

Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an attorney in his professional capacity
and the attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation, then the professional employment must be
regarded as established.

Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took
advantage of his influence by not returning the money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of
the standard conduct of an attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to repay his
loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer whose conduct serves as an example.

*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay Junio within 30 days with
interest at the legal rate.

* Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan.