Cariño v. De los Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Katrina Joaquin Cariño engaged the services of respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes, a former Quezon City prosecutor, to file complaints for slander by deed, threats, and physical injuries against her relatives. Complainant paid an acceptance fee of P10,000.00. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to file the complaint-affidavits despite demands. Meanwhile, the relatives filed countercharges against complainant and her father, and respondent allegedly failed to protect their interests, forcing them to hire another counsel. Respondent denied representing complainant in filing criminal complaints against her relatives, stating his services were for a partition case, and he withdrew due to complainant's failure to provide necessary documents, returning the fee. Complainant admitted the return of the fee but claimed it was only after repeated demands and threats of an estafa charge. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, finding the complainant's evidence inadequate to overcome the presumption of innocence and noting that the return of the fee indicated respondent did not intend to cause harm. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the complainant's and respondent's versions of the incident to be poles apart and deemed the complainant's evidence insufficient. The Petition: Complainant filed a petition for review of the IBP's resolution dismissing her complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes was negligent in handling the legal matter entrusted to him by complainant Katrina Joaquin Cariño. Whether the dismissal of the complaint by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious. It set aside the resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and reprimanded respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes with a warning to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes was negligent in handling the legal matter entrusted to him by complainant Katrina Joaquin Cariño: The Court found the respondent's explanation flimsy and improbable. The Court reasoned that it was unlikely for the complainant to hire the respondent for a partition case six days after the incident giving rise to criminal charges and countercharges, making it more probable that the services were for the pressing legal concern of filing criminal complaints. The Court also found it unbelievable that the complainant fabricated the evasion of duty by the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent could have easily presented affidavits from his wife or Lily Jodloman to controvert the complainant's claims if he had taken his professional engagement seriously. The Court cited Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence shall render him liable. The Court emphasized that once a lawyer agrees to take up a client's cause, he owes fidelity and must serve with competence and diligence, championing the client's cause with wholehearted fidelity. The respondent's conduct, exacerbated by his attempt to evade responsibility, fell short of legal requirements. The Court noted that his membership in the IBP commission investigating complaints against lawyers should have impressed upon him his duty of fidelity. The return of the money paid to him did not diminish his responsibility but only mitigated the penalty. The Court also clarified that there was no merit in the claim that the threats charge prescribed, as the prescriptive period is five years under the Revised Penal Code, and the interests of the complainant and her father were not without protection as they could controvert the charges against them in court. On Whether the dismissal of the complaint by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was proper: The Court disagreed with the IBP's finding of insufficiency of evidence. The Court stated that it could not subscribe to the IBP's conclusion that the complainant's evidence was inadequate. The Court found the complainant's narration of events detailed and credible, especially in light of the respondent's inability to controvert it with substantial evidence. The Court pointed out that the respondent's defense rested on a claim that was improbable given the timeline of events. The Court also highlighted that the respondent's failure to present corroborating witnesses, such as his wife or Lily Jodloman, further weakened his defense. The Court concluded that the IBP's dismissal was not supported by the evidence presented and the applicable rules of professional responsibility. The Court found the petition meritorious, leading to the setting aside of the IBP resolution.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who neglects a legal matter entrusted to him is liable for professional misconduct, and the return of the acceptance fee does not absolve the lawyer of responsibility but only mitigates the penalty.