Sorongon v. Gargantos
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainant Pelagio Vicencio Sorongon, Jr. engaged the services of respondent Atty. Ramon Y. Gargantos, Sr. to represent him in Sandiganbayan cases for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Complainant paid respondent ₱200,000.00 as full payment for legal services, with an agreement that complainant would cover travel expenses, meals, and accommodation for hearings outside Quezon City, and meet at court for hearings within the city. On June 3, 2014, respondent instructed complainant to pick him up at his residence in Quezon City for the June 4, 2014 hearing, otherwise, he would not attend. Complainant complied. After the hearing, respondent allegedly demanded 'pocket money' from complainant, threatening to not appear in the next day's hearing and to cease being complainant's counsel if the demand was not met. The following day, June 5, 2014, complainant went to respondent's residence to pick him up. Respondent allegedly demanded the 'pocket money' again in a harsh tone, threatening to turn the situation around, claim non-payment, and have complainant jailed if the money was not given. Respondent also threatened to resign as counsel. Complainant, traumatized, begged respondent not to abandon him, but respondent ordered him to leave. During the June 5, 2014 hearing, complainant narrated respondent's actions to the Sandiganbayan and informed the court of his inability to hire a new lawyer due to his status as a jobless senior citizen. Respondent filed a letter of withdrawal as counsel on the same day. 2. Procedural History: Complainant filed an Affidavit Complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Respondent requested a copy of the complaint to prepare his Answer. A Mandatory Conference/Hearing was scheduled, but only the complainant appeared. Respondent was declared in default for failing to file an Answer and participate in the proceedings. The IBP-CBD Commissioner found respondent to have violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), particularly Canon 16 and Rule 16.01, recommending a one-year suspension and return of excess fees (₱150,000.00) and documents. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but modified the recommendation to order the return of the entire ₱200,000.00. 3. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's findings and recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Ramon Y. Gargantos, Sr. violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to account for and return client's documents and by allegedly abandoning his client. Whether respondent is liable for abandoning his client without just cause. Whether respondent is liable for failing to account for and return client's money and documents. What is the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the respondent, considering mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Ramon Y. Gargantos, Sr. guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, ordered to return the full amount of ₱200,000.00 to the complainant, and to return all documents pertaining to the complainant's case. He was also warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that respondent failed to account for and return complainant's documents despite demand, violating Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the CPR. Furthermore, despite receiving ₱200,000.00 as full payment for legal services until the resolution of the cases, respondent allegedly abandoned his client when the latter could not provide the demanded 'pocket money.' This conduct constitutes a serious charge that respondent failed to address by not participating in the IBP proceedings. On the abandonment of client without just cause: The Court noted that respondent allegedly abandoned his client when the complainant was unable to give him the 'pocket money' he demanded. This abandonment, coupled with the threat to withdraw and the subsequent filing of a withdrawal letter, demonstrated a lack of fidelity to the client's cause, especially considering the complainant's vulnerable situation as a senior citizen unable to afford new counsel. The respondent's failure to appear at the hearing on June 5, 2014, further solidified this finding. On the failure to account for and return client's money and documents: The Court reiterated the findings of Commissioner Villamor that respondent failed to return complainant's documents despite demand after withdrawing as counsel, which is a violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the CPR. While the IBP Board of Governors ordered the return of the entire ₱200,000.00, the Court considered the amount of ₱50,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered up to the arraignment, but still ordered the return of the remaining ₱150,000.00, along with all documents. On the appropriate penalty: The Court considered the mitigating factors of respondent's advanced age (82 years old) and the fact that this was his first offense. In several cases, the Court has tempered penalties based on such considerations. Therefore, instead of the one-year suspension recommended by the IBP, the respondent was suspended for six (6) months. The order to return the full ₱200,000.00 and all documents was maintained.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who abandons a client without just cause, fails to account for client's money and documents, and demands 'pocket money' under threat of withdrawal is subject to disciplinary action. Mitigating factors such as advanced age and first offense may temper the penalty.