Gabucan v. Narido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jose Antonio G. Gabucan (complainant) engaged the services of respondent Atty. Florencio A. Narido, Jr. (Atty. Narido, Jr.) for an ejectment case concerning a parcel of land. Their agreement stipulated a semi-contingent fee basis: 35% of the property or damages, P2,500.00 appearance fee per hearing, and P1,000.00 for incidental expenses. Atty. Narido, Jr. also entered into a lease contract with the complainant over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case and introduced improvements. The MCTC ruled in favor of the complainant, which was affirmed by the RTC. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), Atty. Narido, Jr. failed to communicate the case status to the complainant and neglected to file a comment or memorandum, leading the CA to remand the case. Complainant hired another lawyer. Subsequently, complainant and Atty. Narido, Jr. settled attorney's fees at P70,000.00, with Atty. Narido, Jr. agreeing to waive his interest in the property and improvements. Complainant paid P35,000.00 and was to pay the balance later. However, when complainant attempted to pay the remaining balance, Atty. Narido, Jr. demanded an additional P10,000.00 for demolished materials. Atty. Narido, Jr. then re-entered the property and built a structure to obstruct the lessee's passage. Procedural History: Complainant filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). The IBP-CBD found Atty. Narido, Jr. guilty of violating Rule 18.04 of the CPR and recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendation. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the guilt of Atty. Narido, Jr. and the appropriate penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Narido, Jr. is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and his Lawyer's Oath regarding diligence, communication, and fees. Whether Atty. Narido, Jr. is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and his Lawyer's Oath regarding leasing property subject to litigation, and whether his actions regarding the demand for P10,000.00 and re-entry into the property constitute a violation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the findings of the IBP. Atty. Florencio A. Narido, Jr. was found guilty of violating Article 1646, in relation to Article 1491 of the Civil Code, and Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for the violation of Article 1646, and for another six (6) months for the violation of Rule 18.03 and 18.04, for a total of one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Rule 18.04 of the CPR (failure to inform client), Rule 18.03 of the CPR (negligence in handling the case), and the unreasonableness of the contingency fee agreement: The Court found Atty. Narido, Jr. guilty of violating Rule 18.04 for failing to keep the complainant informed, and Rule 18.03 for negligence in not filing a comment or memorandum before the CA. The Court also found his contingency fee agreement unreasonable. The Court emphasized the duty to exert best efforts, the importance of reasonable compensation, and that the practice of law is a public service. On the violation of Article 1646 in relation to Article 1491 of the Civil Code, and the demand for P10,000.00 and re-entry into the property: The Court found Atty. Narido, Jr. guilty of violating the prohibition against lawyers leasing property that is the subject of litigation. However, the Court found that Atty. Narido, Jr. could not be faulted for demanding P10,000.00 for his buried materials and for protecting his interest by preventing dump trucks from further burying them because the complainant had violated their agreement.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to inform the client of the case status and neglects legal matters entrusted to him, and who enters into a lease agreement over the client's property subject of litigation, violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and relevant Civil Code provisions, warranting suspension from the practice of law. The Court may impose separate suspensions for distinct violations, which shall be served concurrently.