Caranay v. Tabara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Josephine Caranay retained the services of respondent Atty. Ernesto P. Tabara in October 2000 for a sum of money suit, paying a retainer's fee of ₱25,000.00. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to take legal action for a considerable time and refused to return the fee despite repeated demands. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Investigating Commissioner noted the complainant's non-appearance, the submission of an unnotarized motion to terminate proceedings by the respondent, the lack of affidavits from witnesses to the refund, and recommended that the respondent be required to submit proof of refund within 30 days, otherwise face suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Supreme Court returned the case to the IBP for completion of proceedings. A subsequent report noted the respondent's failure to present proof of refund, recommending the implementation of the suspension. However, before confirmation, the Court received a manifestation and compliance from the respondent with a handwritten receipt for ₱25,000.00 signed by the complainant, indicating she had returned from abroad. The Petition: The complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent for failure to perform his duty and refusal to return the acceptance fee.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Ernesto P. Tabara failed to perform his duty as complainant's counsel. Whether the respondent is obligated to return the acceptance fee of ₱25,000.00. Whether the respondent has complied with the directive to refund the acceptance fee.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Ernesto Tabara. The Court found that the respondent had complied with the refund requirement by submitting a handwritten receipt for ₱25,000.00 duly signed by the complainant, Josephine Caranay, who had just returned from abroad. The Court found no reason to doubt the genuineness of the receipt, noting that the signatures matched those on the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to perform duty: The complainant alleged that respondent failed to take legal action. The respondent admitted receiving the fee but explained it was for legal expenses, documentation, and filing fees, and that delays were caused by issues with the complainant's aide. On the issue of obligation to refund: The complainant alleged that the respondent refused to return the acceptance fee. The IBP initially recommended suspension if proof of refund was not submitted. However, the Supreme Court's ultimate decision hinges on the subsequent submission of proof of refund. On the issue of compliance with the refund directive: The Court considered the handwritten receipt for ₱25,000.00 signed by the complainant as sufficient proof of compliance. The Court explicitly stated, "There is no reason to doubt the genuineness and due execution of the receipt thus submitted." The Court further noted that the signatures on the receipt and the complaint appeared to be from the same person. This submission satisfied the requirement imposed by the IBP Board of Discipline, leading the Court to conclude that the case could be dismissed. The Court found "cogent reason to write finis to this case" upon receipt of this proof of refund.
Main Doctrine
An attorney who fails to perform his duty as counsel and refuses to return the acceptance fee despite demands may be subject to disciplinary action, but dismissal is warranted upon proof of refund.