SECOND DIVISION
EMILIANO
COURT
TOWNHOUSES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Complainant,
Adm.
Case
No. 5162
March 20, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
MICHAEL
DIONEDA,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:
A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY
to the cause of his client mindful always of the trust and confidence
reposed
in him.[1]
An attorney-at-law must serve his client with competence and diligence
at all times,[2]
and never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,[3]
for it is his sworn duty to delay no man for money or malice and to
conduct
himself in a proper manner not just to his client, but also to the
court,
the legal profession and society at large.
This is an administrative
complaint for disbarment filed by the EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES
HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION (ECTHA) against ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 29 September 1997
ECTHA and respondent Dioneda entered into a Retainer's Agreement
wherein
respondent lawyer agreed to handle the case of the complainant against
LVF Realty, Mr. Tinsay and BPI Family Savings Bank by way of filing a
Complaint-in-Intervention
in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, docketed as
Civil
Case No. 4890-V-96, for P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and P1,000.00 as
appearance fee per hearing.[4]
It was further agreed that respondent lawyer would update the complaint
and work on the development of the case.[5]
In its Complaint ECTHA
alleged that Atty. Dioneda, after receiving the amount of P20,000.00,
did
nothing for the development of the case and to update the complaint on
the status of ECTHA's intended Complaint-in-Intervention. Due to
the insistence of the members of the Association, Mr. Fernando Garcia,
ECTHA President, was compelled to check the records of the case in the
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 75, and secured a
certification
from the Branch Clerk of Court dated 5 July 1999 that there was no
motion
for intervention filed in the case.[6]
On behalf of ECTHA Mr.
Garcia repeatedly made oral demands for respondent to return the amount
of P20,000.00 because he did not do anything to protect the rights and
interests of the Association. Respondent Dioneda only made oral
promises
to pay, and in August 1999 he could no longer be contacted and the
personnel
in his office simply made excuses to Mr. Garcia.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Through Mr. Garcia ECTHA
referred the matter to Atty. Antonio L. Umali, who contacted respondent
by telephone. Still, no response was made by respondent. On
18 August 1999 a letter dated 17 August 1999 was sent to Dioneda, but
again
there was no response.[8]
In his Comment filed
before this Court, respondent Dioneda admitted that he and ECTHA
entered
into a Retainer's Agreement; however, he averred that the Agreement did
not cover only the Complaint-in-Intervention as adverted to by the
complainant.
It also included the case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board
(HLURB) that the complainant filed against the developer of Emiliano
Court
Townhouses who refused to release to the members of the ECTHA their
respective
Deeds of Sale.cralaw:red
At the time his legal
services were engaged, Atty. Dioneda alleged that there was already a
decision
in favor of the complainant. Thereafter, respondent entered his
appearance
and filed a Motion for Execution with the HLURB. According to
respondent
Mr. Garcia would go with him and follow up the issuance of the Writ of
Execution with the HLURB National Office. Respondent
Dioneda
further alleged that he wanted to pursue the Writ of Execution since he
would attach it to the Complaint-in-Intervention, and that this was
explained
to the members of ECTHA. Respondent claimed that there was delay
in the filing of the Complaint-in-Intervention because there was delay
in the issuance by the HLURB of the Writ of Execution.cralaw:red
Respondent further averred
that Mr. Garcia would call him at his residence and "spew invectives"
at
him. There would be no day that Mr. Garcia would not call
respondent
and hurl expletives at him and his parents. Respondent denied the
allegation that ECTHA had made several demands on him and that he
promised
to pay sometime August 1999.cralaw:red
After receiving the
demand letter of ECTHA respondent immediately called up the residence
of
Mr. Garcia and informed him that he could get the money and the records
of the case at his office. However, respondent informed ECTHA
that
a portion of the amount to be returned would be deducted as a
reasonable
fee for the efforts exerted by him. According to respondent, no
representative
of the complainant showed up at his law office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Dioneda denied
the charge that he never attended to the case of the complainant and
that
he did nothing to protect the interest of its members. He
asserted
that there was no intention on his part to defraud them.cralaw:red
The matter was referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
Hearings
were set on at least five (5) separate dates. Despite due notice,
respondent never attended the IBP administrative hearings. Thus
the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline allowed the presentation of
complainant's
evidence ex-parte against respondent on the 14 December 2001 hearing.[9]
On 13 February 2002
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
(IBP), through the designated Commissioner, recommended that respondent
be found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically
Canons 17 and 18.[10]
The IBP held that the act of receiving professional fees and thereafter
failing to render the corresponding legal service is a violation of the
Canons. The penalty of three (3) months suspension from the
practice
of law and an order for Dioneda to return the amount of P20,000.00 to
his
client in the interest of justice were recommended. On 29 June
2002,
Resolution No. XV-2002-252 was passed by the IBP Board of Governors
adopting
and approving the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.cralaw:red
The sole issue in this
case is whether Atty. Dioneda violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Admittedly respondent received the
amount
of P20,000.00 as acceptance fee for handling a case to be filed in
behalf
of ECTHA. Despite receipt of the aforementioned fee, respondent
allegedly
failed to render the corresponding legal services to the complainant.cralaw:red
We agree with the Report
of IBP Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes as approved and adopted by
the
IBP Board of Governors.cralaw:red
The Complaint-in-Intervention
was never filed and despite the pronouncement of respondent that he
would
return the attorney's fees to complainant, he never did. The
issuance
of the Writ of Execution in the HLURB should never have been a
requirement
imposed by respondent before a Complaint-in-Intervention could be filed.cralaw:red
Before the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline, respondent Dioneda did not attend a single hearing
to
defend himself. Despite due notice, he did not attend the
hearings
scheduled on 19 March, 9 May, 20 June, 8 August and 14 December
2001.
The parties were ordered to submit their respective position papers in
the Order of 9 May 2001 of the CBD-IBP. Respondent never complied
with the Order.cralaw:red
Respondent's lamentable
attitude towards his client's case is clearly evident from his apparent
disinterest in his own case for disbarment. Dioneda never
bothered
to present evidence in his defense. He disregarded all notices
sent
to him by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, which were personally
served
at his office address. He never appeared before the Commission
despite
several opportunities to do so and explain his side.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is reasonable to
conclude that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, respondent
committed
an infringement of ethical standards. The act of receiving money
as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the case of
complainant
ECTHA against LVF Realty, Mr. Tinsay and BPI Family Bank and
subsequently
failing to render such service is a clear violation of Canons 17 and 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Not only that.
The acts of inexcusable negligence in legal matters entrusted to him
and
disloyalty to his client constitute major breaches of respondent's oath
as a lawyer.[11]
These acts that are inimical to his client's interests render
respondent
liable.cralaw:red
A member of the legal
profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest,
warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of
his
utmost learning and ability.[12]
Public interest demands that an attorney 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.
A lawyer's inability to properly discharge his duty to his client may
also
mean a violation of his correlative obligations to the court, to his
profession
and to the general public.cralaw:red
The duty of a lawyer
to safeguard his client's interests commences from his retainer until
his
effective discharge from the case or the final disposition of the
entire
subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client
establishes
an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity
to the client's cause. The canons of the legal profession require
that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the
task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. Indeed, respondent
neglected
a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file the
Complaint-in-Intervention
he undertook to handle, thus making him liable under Rule 18.03 of
Canon
18.cralaw:red
In Santos v. Lazaro
this Court recognized Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
as a basic postulate in legal ethics stating that when a lawyer takes a
client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
protecting
his rights.[13]
The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected
of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust
reposed
in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client
but
also to the legal profession, the courts and society.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the recommended
penalty by the IBP is not commensurate to the acts complained of.
Jurisprudence shows that heavier sanctions have been imposed for
ethical
violations of this nature, taking into consideration the gravity of the
offense and the necessity of preserving the integrity of the legal
profession.cralaw:red
Following the latest
rulings of this Court on disciplinary proceedings against erring
attorneys,
those found guilty of the same or similar acts were suspended for not
less
than six (6) months from the practice of law.cralaw:red
The facts of Sencio
v. Calvadores bear a striking similarity to the present case.[15]
The respondent lawyer in Sencio did not return the money to the
complainant
after a demand therefor was made following his failure to file the
case.
This Court took to task the respondent's attitude of not answering the
complaint and in deliberately disregarding the orders and notices of
the
IBP on many occasions, holding that this attitude showed a character or
disposition which stains the nobility of the legal profession as he
chose
not to appear at the scheduled hearings despite due notice and warnings
given.[16]
The IBP-appointed Commissioner had no other recourse but to receive the
evidence of the complainant ex-parte.[17]
Accordingly, the respondent
in Sencio was found guilty of violation of the lawyer's oath,
malpractice
and gross misconduct, suspended for six (6) months, and ordered to
return
to his client the amount of P12,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum
from
the date of the promulgation of the resolution until the return of the
amount.[18]
This Court in Garcia
v. Manuel suspended the respondent lawyer from the practice of law for
six (6) months and ordered him to render an accounting of all monies he
received from the complainant.[19]
The counselor-at-law was found guilty of gross misconduct, especially
for
ineffectively handling the case of his client and failing to return the
money given by that same client.cralaw:red
In Rabanal v. Tugade[20]
and Galen v. Paguirigan,[21]
the respondent lawyers who failed to file a brief to the detriment of
their
respective clients were suspended by this Court for six (6) months on
the
first offense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent attorney
in Aromin v. Boncavil was found to have violated Canons 15, 17 and 18
of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.[22]
He was suspended for six (6) months and warned that a repetition of a
similar
offense would be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
As to the amount of
Atty. Dioneda's compensation for his legal services, the general rule
as
to the conclusiveness of a valid written contract fixing attorney's
fees
cannot find application in the case at bar. This is due
largely
to the complainant's request for a full refund of the attorney's fees
given,
and the respondent's counter-proposal that a portion of the amount be
deducted
as a reasonable fee for the efforts exerted by him. In a
situation
where both parties are deemed to have impliedly disregarded the
contract
and placed themselves in the position as though there was no express
stipulation
as to the attorney's fees, the lawyer's compensation shall be
determined
on the basis of quantum meruit.[23]
Despite this settled
principle of law on the compensation of an attorney for legal services,
we rule against respondent lawyer in the present case.cralaw:red
To deserve compensation
for his legal services based on quantum meruit, respondent Dioneda must
prove by substantial evidence that he is entitled to a reasonable fee
for
his efforts in pursuing the complainant's case with the Court taking
into
account certain factors in fixing the amount of his fees.[24]
However, due to respondent's conspicuous absence at the administrative
hearings for his disbarment set by the IBP's Commission on Bar
Discipline
on at least five (5) different occasions, and the apparent lack of
findings
of fact to support the position of respondent, evidence required to
establish
attorney's fees was never adduced. For having missed
several
opportunities to present evidence in his favor without any satisfactory
explanation as to his non-appearance, we are constrained to deny him
compensation
for his legal services on the basis of quantum meruit due to the lack
of
any factual basis to determine the value of his work as complainant's
counsel.cralaw:red
Finally, Rivera v. Corral[25]
reiterates the purpose of administrative cases against lawyers in this
manner -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The primary objective
of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and
discipline
the erring individual lawyers but also to safeguard the administration
of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct
of lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter
disregard of their lawyer's oath has proven them unfit to continue
discharging
the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. A lawyer may be
disbarred
or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity,
which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.cralaw:red
It must be stressed
that the power to discipline advocates of the law should be exercised
with
extreme care, primarily on the notion of preserving the nobility of the
law as a profession rather than on the incidental purpose of
vindicating
the rights of private parties against erring lawyers. The
indispensable
duty of this Court as the guardian of the bench and bar remains that of
maintaining the people's respect for the rule of law and the efficient
administration of justice, while at the same time restoring the
community's
faith in the legal profession.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Atty. Michael Dioneda is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months, which shall take effect from the date of notice of receipt of
the
finality of this Decision, with a WARNING that repetition of the same
or
similar acts will merit a more severe penalty, and is ORDERED to RETURN
to complainant Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association the
amount
of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with interest of twelve percent
(12%) per annum from the date of promulgation of this Decision until
the
full amount as directed, is returned.cralaw:red
Let copy of this Decision
be furnished all courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines,
the Office of the Bar Confidant, and entered into respondent's personal
records as an attorney and as a member of the Philippine Bar.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Mendoza, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17.
[2]
Id., Canon 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., Rule 18.03.
[4]
Rollo, p. 1.
[5]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 2.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Id. at 4.
[9]
TSN, Adm. Case No. 5162, Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar
of
the Philippines, 14 December 2001; Rollo, pp. 1-14.
[10]
Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Atty. Michael
Dioneda,
Adm. Case No. 5162, 13 February 2002, Report and Recommendation,
Commission
on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
The Lawyers 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 Rules of Court, Form 28.
[12]
Agpalo, R., Legal Ethics 157 (4th ed., 1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Adm. Case No. 5085, 6 February 2003.
[14]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Adm. Case No. 5841, 20 January 2003.
[16]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Ibid.
[19]
Adm. Case No. 5811, 20 January 2003.
[20]
Adm. Case No. 1372, 27 June 2002.
[21]
Adm. Case No. 5558, 7 March 2002.
[22]
Adm. Case No. 5135, 22 September 1999.
[23]
Agpalo, R., at 331, citing Francisco v. Matias, 119 Phil. 351 (1964),
and
Delgado v. De la Rama, 43 Phil. 419 (1922).
[24]
Id. at 332-340.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Adm. Case No. 3548, 4 July 2002. |