Sencio v. Calvadores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Emily Sencio engaged the services of respondent Atty. Robert Calvadores to prosecute the civil aspect of a case arising from the death of her son in a vehicular accident. Complainant paid P1,500.00 initially and later P12,000.00 as attorney's fees and for expenses. Respondent assured complainant that the case would be handled but failed to file any case, which he later admitted. Procedural History: Complainant repeatedly tried to recover her money and have the case filed, but respondent failed to do either. The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) ordered respondent to answer the disbarment complaint. Despite receipt of the order, respondent failed to file an answer. He also failed to appear at scheduled hearings on May 29, 2001, July 16, 2001, and September 7, 2001, despite due notice and warnings. The investigation proceeded ex-parte, and the evidence of the complainant was received. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 16, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended suspension for three months and return of the P12,000.00. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this report and recommendation. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Robert Calvadores.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Robert Calvadores violated the lawyer's oath, malpractice, and gross misconduct. Whether respondent violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent's failure to appear before the IBP warrants disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and conclusion of the IBP, holding that the breach of respondent's sworn duty as a lawyer and ethical standards was sufficiently established. The Court increased the penalty of suspension to six (6) months and ordered the return of P12,000.00 with legal interest within thirty (30) days from notice.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Atty. Robert Calvadores violated the lawyer's oath, malpractice, and gross misconduct: The existence of a lawyer-client relationship was established. Respondent owed fidelity to his client's cause under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By failing to file the case he undertook to handle, respondent violated Canon 18, specifically Rule 18.03, which prohibits neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. His failure to file the case, despite receiving attorney's fees and expenses, constitutes malpractice and gross misconduct, falling under the purview of violating his lawyer's oath. The Court emphasized that a lawyer must undertake tasks with dedication and care, and less than that is a betrayal of the oath. On whether respondent violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The respondent violated Canon 18 by neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him, as he failed to file the case. Furthermore, in not returning the money to the complainant after demand, following his failure to file the case, respondent violated Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.03, which mandates the delivery of client's funds and property upon demand. The unjustified withholding of money belonging to a client is a ground for disciplinary action. The Court reiterated that a lawyer's failure to file a case and subsequent failure to return the client's money are clear violations of these canons. On whether respondent's failure to appear before the IBP warrants disciplinary action: The respondent's attitude in not answering the complaint and deliberately disregarding the orders and notices of the IBP on multiple occasions demonstrated a character that stains the nobility of the legal profession. His repeated failure to appear at scheduled hearings, despite due notice and warnings, led the Commissioner to proceed ex-parte, as allowed by Section 30, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This conduct shows a lack of respect for the disciplinary process and the Commission, further justifying disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to file a case entrusted to him, neglects a legal matter, and fails to return client's money upon demand, violates Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and such conduct warrants suspension from the practice of law and ordering the return of the client's money with legal interest. Failure to appear before the IBP despite notice and warnings constitutes disrespect and may lead to proceedings ex-parte.