FIRST DIVISION
DOLORES
D.
PARIÑAS,
Complainant,
A.
C.
No. 6297
(CBD Case No. 03-1059)
July 13, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
OSCAR P.
PAGUINTO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
A lawyer has the duty
to give adequate attention and time to every case he accepts. A
lawyer
impliedly warrants that he possesses the necessary diligence, learning
and skill to handle each case. He should exert his best judgment
and exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit
or defense of his client’s cause.
The Facts
Sometime in October
2001, complainant Dolores Dryden Pariñas (“Pariñas”)
engaged
the services of respondent Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto (“Paguinto”) to
annul
her marriage to Danilo Soriano. They agreed that for the legal
services,
Pariñas would pay Paguinto an acceptance fee of P25,000, the
filing
fee of P2,500 and other incidental expenses.chanrobles virtual law library
On 2 December 2001,
Pariñas paid Paguinto P10,000 in cash as partial payment of the
acceptance fee. An acknowledgment receipt evidenced this payment.[1]
Pariñas gave Paguinto a diskette containing a narration of what
happened between her and her estranged husband Danilo Soriano.
Pariñas
also furnished Paguinto with a copy of her marriage contract with
Soriano.
Before the end of December 2001, Pariñas gave Paguinto P2,500
for
the filing fee.cralaw:red
Sometime between January
and April 2002, Pariñas inquired from Paguinto on the progress
of
her annulment case. Paguinto informed her that the case was
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 64 (“RTC-Manila,
Branch 64”), before Judge Ricaforte and that the hearing was scheduled
on 25 April 2002. Before the hearing, Pariñas
requested
for a meeting with Paguinto but the secretary informed her that the
hearing
was cancelled. The secretary further informed Pariñas that
the judge reset the succeeding hearings originally scheduled on 29 May
2002 and 26 June 2002 because the judge was sick or out of town.cralaw:red
On the first week of
July 2002, Pariñas went to the trial court to inquire about her
case but the court personnel in RTC-Manila, Branch 64 informed her that
there was no such case filed in their court. Pariñas asked
Paguinto for the case number, date of filing, copy of the petition and
the court where the annulment case was pending. Paguinto told
Pariñas
that the records were at his office and that he was in Malolos, Bulacan
attending to a case. It turned out that there was no
annulment
case filed in RTC-Manila, Branch 64. Paguinto promised to return
the money that Pariñas paid as down payment. However,
Paguinto
returned the P10,000 only after Pariñas filed with the
Commission
on Bar Discipline (“CBD”) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(“IBP”)
the present complaint for disbarment.cralaw:red
In the Order dated 14
February 2003,[2]
the CBD directed Paguinto to answer the complaint. Paguinto asked
for an extension of 15 days to file his Answer. The CBD granted the
extension
in the Order dated 19 March 2003.[3]
However, Paguinto failed to file his Answer within the extended period
and thus the CBD declared him in default in the Order dated 15 July
2003.[4]
After the hearing, Pariñas submitted her Position Paper praying
that the CBD declare Paguinto guilty of violation of Rule 16.01 and
Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.cralaw:red
On 10 September 2003,
Pariñas filed an Affidavit of Withdrawal[5]
of the complaint. Pariñas stated that Paguinto “personally
explained
exhaustively the reasons why he failed to comply with his obligations”
and she realized that the complaint arose due to a “misapprehension of
facts, misunderstanding and miscommunication.” Pariñas
manifested
that she was withdrawing the complaint, as she was no longer interested
in pursuing the case.chanrobles virtual law library
On the same date, Paguinto
filed a Manifestation and Motion[6]
explaining that he failed to attend the hearing on 30 July 2003 because
he was in Tabuk, Kalinga attending a hearing in a criminal case for
frustrated
homicide. He apologized to Pariñas for his actuations claiming
“himself
solely to be blamed.” He further declared that he failed to
timely
prepare and file the petition for annulment because he spends his time
mostly in Gen. Mariano Alvarez, Cavite where he practices law catering
to those “clients who have less in life.”chanrobles virtual law library
Commissioner’s
Report
& Recommendation
The IBP designated Atty.
Rebecca Villanueva-Maala (“Commissioner”) as Commissioner to conduct a
formal investigation of the case. The Commissioner found Paguinto
negligent
in performing his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of the
court.
The Commissioner declared that a lawyer has the duty to give adequate
attention,
care and time to his cases, accepting only as many cases as he can
handle.
Paguinto failed to comply with this duty. The Commissioner
recommended
the suspension of Paguinto from the practice of law for six months.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with the Commissioner.cralaw:red
Pariñas gave
Paguinto P10,000 cash as partial payment of the acceptance fee.
Pariñas
also gave Paguinto P2,500 for the filing fee. Paguinto led
Pariñas
to believe that he had filed the annulment case. Paguinto
informed
Pariñas that the case was filed with the RTC-Manila, Branch 64,
before Judge Ricaforte. However, Pariñas later found out
that
Paguinto never filed the annulment case in court.chanrobles virtual law library
Rule 16.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (“the Code”)
provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected
for or from the client. Acceptance of money from a client establishes
an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to
the client’s cause.[7]
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing
fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be
returned
to the client on demand.[8]
Paguinto returned the money only after Pariñas filed this
administrative
case for disbarment.cralaw:red
Paguinto should know
that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his client. When a
lawyer
accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he
possesses
the requisite academic learning, skill and ability to handle the
case.
The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution
or
defense of the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and
ordinary
care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case.chanrobles virtual law library
A lawyer should give
adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle
a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and
care.
If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer.
Hence,
a lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle,
otherwise
his clients’ interests will suffer.[9]
It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle
the
legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal work.cralaw:red
The lawyer owes it to
his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability in handling his
cases. A license to practice law is a guarantee by the courts to
the public that the licensee possesses sufficient skill, knowledge and
diligence to manage their cases.[10]
The legal profession demands from a lawyer the vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family.chanrobles virtual law library
In Gamalinda vs. Alcantara,[11]
we ruled:
A lawyer
owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust
and
confidence reposed in him. He shall serve his client with competence
and
diligence, and his duty of entire devotion to his client’s cause not
only
requires, but entitles him to employ every honorable means to secure
for
the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided
by law to enable the latter’s cause to succeed. An attorney’s duty to
safeguard
the client’s interests commences from his retainer until his effective
release from the case or the final disposition of the whole subject
matter
of the litigation. During that period, he is expected to take such
reasonable
steps and such ordinary care as his client’s interests may require.
And failure to do so
violates
Canon 18 of the Code.[12]
Rule 18.01 of the Code
is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service that he is not
qualified
to render. Rule 18.02 of the Code
provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate
preparation. He has the duty to prepare for trial with diligence and
deliberate
speed. Rule 18.03 of the Code
also provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him and his negligence shall render him liable.chanrobles virtual law library
One last point. Pariñas
executed an Affidavit of Withdrawal[13]
of the complaint stating that she was withdrawing the administrative
complaint
against Paguinto after realizing that “said complaint against the
respondent
arose due to misapprehension of facts, misunderstanding and
miscommunication.”
Paguinto, on the other hand, submitted a Manifestation and Motion
apologizing
to Pariñas for his actuations and admitting that he was “solely
to be blamed.” A compromise or withdrawal of charges
does not terminate an administrative complaint against a lawyer,[14]
especially in this case where the lawyer admitted his misconduct.cralaw:red
Pariñas’s affidavit
of withdrawal of the disbarment case does not exonerate Paguinto in any
way. We reiterate our ruling in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos[15]
that:
A proceeding for suspension
or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant
is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary
proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private
grievance.
They are undertaken solely for the public welfare. x x x The
attorney
is called upon to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of
the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of
the
court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and
has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens
may
have in the proper administration of justice.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, we find respondent
ATTY. OSCAR P. PAGUINTO GUILTY of violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we penalize Atty.
Oscar
P. Paguinto with SUSPENSION for SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law
effective upon receipt of this Decision.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Decision
be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent’s
personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J., Chairman,
Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 5.
[2]
Rollo, p. 8.
[3]
Ibid., p.12.
[4]
Ibid., p. 13.
[5]
Ibid., p. 21.
[6]
Ibid., pp. 23-25.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v.
Dioneda,
A.C. No. 5162, 20 March 2003, 399 SCRA 296.
[8]
Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, 11 March 2003, 399 SCRA 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457, 18 March 1991, 195 SCRA 418.
[10]
Pajarillo v. WCC, No. L- 42927, 28 January 1980, 95 SCRA 585.
[11]
A.C. No. 3695, 24 February 1992, 206 SCRA 468.
[12]
Supra note 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Punzalan v. Plata, 423 Phil. 819 (2001).
[15]
349 Phil. 7 (1998). |