Macarilay v. Seriña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Marissa L. Macarilay engaged the services of respondent Atty. Felix B. Seriña for issues concerning a property sale, including registering the sale and addressing a mortgage. Complainant paid respondent an acceptance fee of P20,000.00, a notarization fee of P3,000.00, a filing fee of P5,000.00 for an adverse claim, and another P20,000.00 for filing suits against the seller, Albaria Mohammad. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to file the promised suits, misrepresented that a case was pending, and refused to return the payments made for services not rendered. Respondent claimed he prepared the necessary complaints but complainant and her co-buyer refused to sign them due to an unknown address for Mohammad, and that complainant owed him additional fees for other legal services and advances. Procedural History: Complainant filed a verified Complaint for malpractice and/or gross misconduct against respondent with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). The IBP-CBD conducted a mandatory conference/hearing, received documentary evidence, and parties submitted their respective Position Papers. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent remiss in attending to his client's cause, violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner recommended a penalty of reprimand or suspension and ordered respondent to pay complainant P40,000.00 as restitution. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation with modification, suspending respondent for six months and ordering restitution of P40,000.00. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Felix B. Seriña violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to render the agreed legal services and engaging in deceitful practices, and whether this constitutes malpractice and/or gross misconduct. Whether respondent is liable to return the sums paid by the complainant for services not rendered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, finding Atty. Felix B. Seriña guilty of violating Canons 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and ordered to return P40,000.00 to the complainant with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, malpractice, and/or gross misconduct: The Court held that a lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary and demands utmost fidelity, candor, fairness, and good faith. Respondent's failure to file the cases despite receiving filing fees, his deception in claiming a case was filed, and his refusal to return the money constituted a breach of his sworn duty and ethical standards. The Court found respondent's defense that complainant was at fault for the non-filing of complaints to be a mere afterthought, noting that respondent did not raise this defense in his earlier correspondence. The Court emphasized that the lawyer's duty includes vigilance and attention, akin to a "good father of a family," and that failure to file a complaint due to an unknown address of the defendant is not an excuse, as remedies like summons by publication exist. The unjustified withholding of client funds also warrants disciplinary action. On the liability to return sums paid for services not rendered: The Court found that complainant paid respondent a total of P48,000.00. It was established that the only legal services rendered were the notarization of a deed of sale and the filing of an adverse claim. The Court agreed with the Investigating Commissioner that P8,000.00 was sufficient compensation for the services actually rendered. Therefore, respondent was ordered to return the balance of P40,000.00 to the complainant, plus legal interest.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to render the legal services agreed upon despite receipt of an acceptance fee, and engages in deceitful cover-ups of such carelessness, commits a major breach of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension and restitution.