FIRST DIVISION
EMILY
SENCIO,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5841
January 20, 2003 - versus -
ATTY.
ROBERT
CALVADORES,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:
In a verified complaint[1]
for disbarment filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dated 18 November 1999, complainant Emily
Sencio charged respondent Atty. Robert Calvadores with violation of the
lawyer’s oath, malpractice and gross misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Sencio alleged
that sometime in 1997 her eldest son, Herbert Sencio, died in a
vehicular
accident. She was referred by her mother-in-law to respondent
Calvadores
to prosecute the civil aspect of the case. On 19 May 1998 she initially
gave the respondent the amount of P1,500 and promised to pay the
attorney’s
fees later.cralaw:red
On 20 August 1998, after
having accumulated enough funds, the complainant paid the respondent
the
amount of P12,000 as attorney’s fees and for other expenses relating to
the case. The payment was duly acknowledged by the respondent.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From that time on, complainant
Sencio regularly contacted the respondent to update herself of the
status
of the case. The respondent kept on assuring her that everything would
be alright. Finally, however, complainant discovered that the
respondent
did not file any case, a fact which the respondent admitted. The latter
promised to return to the complainant the money he had received from
her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complainant returned
several times to respondent’s house and even patiently waited for him
outside
his house to get back her money. The respondent, however, did not
return
to her the money. He still did not file the case in court either.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its Order[3]
of 19 November 1999, the Commission on Bar Discipline, through
Commissioner
Victor C. Fernandez, required the respondent to submit his answer to
the
complaint and reminded him that if he failed to answer, he would be
considered
in default and the case would be heard ex-parte.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Notwithstanding his
receipt of the Order, as evidenced by the registry return card, the
respondent
did not file any answer to the complaint. He was then given notice to
appear
at the hearing on 29 May 2001. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the initial hearing
on 29 May 2001, the respondent did not appear. The hearing was reset to
16 July 2001. The respondent was warned that if he would fail to appear
on that date, the evidence for the complainant would be received; the
case
would be deemed submitted for decision; and he would have to face the
consequences
of his non-appearance and disrespectful attitude towards the Commission
on Bar Discipline.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the case was called
for hearing on 16 July 2001, the respondent did not appear despite due
notice. Fortunately for him, the counsel for the complainant was not
available
for the presentation of evidence. The hearing was reset to 7 September
2001, and the respondent was directed to be present at such hearing.[5]
The Commission reiterated the warning in its Order of 29 May 2001. But,
on that date the respondent failed again to appear.[6]
The hearing was then reset to 24 October 2001 but was later cancelled
and
reset to 14 December 2001.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Again, despite due notice,
the respondent did not appear for the hearing on 14 December 2001.
Commissioner
Wilfredo E.J. E. Reyes, who took charge of the investigation, received
the evidence for the complainant. In his Report and Recommendation, he
found the respondent guilty of the violation of Canons 16, 17 and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended that the
respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months
and be ordered to return to the complainant the amount of P12,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its Resolution No.
XV-2002-410 dated 3 August 2002, the Board of Governors of the IBP
adopted
the Report and Recommendation of Commisioner Reyes.cralaw:red
We agree with the findings
and conclusion of the Commission, as approved and adopted by the Board
of Governors of the IBP. The breach of respondent’s sworn duty as a
lawyer
and of the ethical standards he was strictly to honor and observe has
been
sufficiently established. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Needless to state, a
lawyer-client relationship existed between the respondent and the
complainant.
As such, the respondent, under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,
owed fidelity to the cause of his client. Once a lawyer agrees to
handle
a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care; less
than
that, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer.[8]
In failing to file the case he undertook to handle, the respondent
violated
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule
18.03 thereof, which provides that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall
render him liable."
Likewise, in not returning
the money to the complainant after a demand therefor was made following
his failure to file the case, the respondent 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 his client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We also frown upon the
attitude of the respondent in not answering the complaint and in
deliberately
disregarding the orders and notices of the IBP on many occasions. This
attitude showed a character or disposition which stains the nobility of
the legal profession. He chose not to appear at the scheduled hearings
despite due notice and the warnings. Section 30, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court specifically provides: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 30. Attorney to
be heard before removal or suspension. - No attorney shall be removed
or
suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has full
opportunity
upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce
witness
in his behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon
reasonable
notice he fails to appear and answer the accusations, the court may
proceed
to determine the matter ex parte. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Commissioner then
had no recourse but to receive ex-parte the evidence of the
complainant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of the foregoing,
the recommendation of the IBP to suspend the respondent and to return
the
amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000) to the complainant is
affirmed,
with the modification that the penalty of suspension from the practice
of law is hereby increased to six (6) months and that the return of the
P12,000 should be done within thirty (30) days from notice, with legal
interest. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
ATTY. ROBERT CALVADORES is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for
a period of six (6) months effective immediately, and ordered to return
to Emily Sencio, within thirty (30) days from notice of this
Resolution,
the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000) with interest at 12% per
annum from the date of the promulgation of this Resolution until its
return.
The respondent is further warned that a commission of the same or
similar
act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, 1-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Annex 'A' of the Complaint, Rollo, 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418, 428 [1991].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Reyes vs. Maglaya, 243 SCRA 214, 219 [1995].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |