Spouses GARCIA VS. BALA, A.C. No. 5039 Nov. 25, 2005
"X x x.
Administrative
Liability of Respondent
The practice of law is
considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it.[16]
Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.[17]
They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[18]
Negligence for Wrong Remedy
The Code of Professional
Responsibility[19] mandates
lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence.[20] Rule
18.02 states that “a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.” Specifically, Rule 18.03 provides that “a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.”
Once lawyers agree to take
up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to the cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them.[21]
A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense.[22]
Evidently, respondent
failed to champion the cause of his clients with wholehearted fidelity, care
and devotion. Despite adequate time, he did not familiarize himself
with the correct procedural remedy as regards their case. Worse, he repeatedly
assured them that the supposed petition had already been filed.[23]
Since he effectively waived
his right to be heard, the Court can only assume that there was no valid reason
for his failure to file a petition for review, and that he was therefore
negligent.
Conduct Unbecoming
Having become aware of the
wrong remedy he had erroneously taken, respondent purposely evaded
complainants, refused to update them on the appeal, and misled them as to his
whereabouts.[24]
Moreover, on June 17, 1998, he uttered invectives at them when they visited him
for an update on the case.[25]
Rule 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that 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.” Accordingly, complainants had
the right to be updated on the developments and status of the case for which
they had engaged the services of respondent.[26]
But he apparently denied them that right.
Furthermore,
for using unsavory words against complainants, he should also be
sanctioned. Lawyers may be disciplined -- whether in their professional
or in their private capacity -- for any conduct that is wanting in morality,
honesty, probity and good demeanor.[27]
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to “uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession” at all times.
In addition, the Court
notes the nonparticipation of respondent even in the present proceedings.
He ignored the directive for him to file his comment,[28] just
as he had disregarded the IBP hearing commissioner’s orders[29]for
the conduct of hearings, submission of documentary
evidence and position paper. Never did he acknowledge or
offer any excuse for his noncompliance.
Clearly, his conduct
manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities. Despite the fact that
his profession and honor are at stake, he did not even bother to speak a word
in his defense. Apparently, he has no wish to preserve the dignity and
honor expected of lawyers and the legal profession. His demeanor is
clearly demeaning.
The Need to Reimburse the
Money Paid
Under the present factual circumstances, respondent should return the money
paid by complainants. First, his legal services were
virtually nullified by his recourse to the wrong remedy. Complainants
would not have lost their right to appeal had he acted competently.
Second, the legal fees were not
commensurate to the services rendered. Complainants engaged his legal
services to appeal the DARAB Decision, but all he did was to file a Notice of
Appeal.[30]
Additionally, he had
already promised them a refund of the money paid, yet he failed to do so.
The Court may ascertain how
much attorney’s fees are reasonable under the circumstances.[31]
In the present case, the request of complainants for a full refund of the
attorney’s fees they had paid effectively challenged the contract; it was as
though the parties had no express stipulation as to those fees. [32] Quantum
meruit therefore applies.
Quantum
meruit -- meaning “as much as he deserves” -- is used as
basis for determining a lawyer’s professional fees in the absence of a
contract.[33]
Lawyers must be able to show that they are entitled to reasonable compensation
for their efforts in pursuing their clients’ case, taking into account certain
factors in fixing the amount of legal fees.[34]
Based on the circumstances of the present case, the legal services actually
rendered by respondent were too insignificant for remuneration because of the
uselessness of the remedy he took.
This Court has imposed the
penalty of suspension for six months for a lawyer’s negligence in failing to
perfect an appeal.[35] Considering
the similarity of the circumstances with those prevailing in this case, we find
the imposition of the same penalty reasonable.
X x x ."
