Morales v. Borres
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Edgardo M. Morales charged respondent Atty. Ramiro B. Borres, Jr. with violations of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Complainant alleged that respondent agreed to assist him in filing complaints for trespass to property and malicious mischief, for which he paid a P25,000 acceptance fee. Respondent prepared and filed three complaints for malicious mischief before the Office of the City Prosecutor-Tabaco City (OCP-Tabaco City). Complainant indicated his brother-in-law's address in Tabaco City as his postal address, though he resided in Quezon City. Respondent informed complainant that the cases were dismissed, but failed to provide copies of the dismissal resolutions. Upon inquiry at the OCP-Tabaco City, they were informed that notices sent to the brother-in-law's residence were returned unserved. The OCP-Tabaco City directed complainant to submit information on the ages of the accused, date of barangay conciliation referral, and copies of police/barangay blotters. Complainant gave respondent his title to the property for the motion for reconsideration, but respondent allegedly did not attach it. The motion for reconsideration was denied for failure to sufficiently prove ownership. Procedural History: Respondent countered that he moved his law office but still followed up the cases. He claimed he was unaware of complainant's postal address and that OCP-Tabaco City personnel were often unavailable. He stated he informed complainant of the dismissal and accompanied him to the OCP-Tabaco City. He asserted the title was unnecessary as ownership was acknowledged in a Kasunduan, and police/barangay blotters were destroyed by typhoons. He advised complainant to file a petition for review, which complainant did not heed. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found respondent guilty and recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors reversed this, dismissing the complaint. The Petition: The complainant charged respondent with violations of Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR.
Issue(s)
Did respondent violate Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Did respondent fail to serve his client with competence and diligence?
Ruling
The Court affirmed the Resolution dated March 1, 2017, and the Extended Resolution dated February 2, 2018, of the IBP Board of Governors. The complaint against Atty. Ramiro B. Borres, Jr. was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court was not persuaded by the complainant's allegations. Firstly, respondent was not shown to be the complainant's counsel of record, explaining why he did not receive copies of orders or resolutions. Secondly, the complainant admitted that notices were returned unserved because he used his brother-in-law's address instead of his actual residence. Thirdly, the respondent's assertion that he followed up the cases whenever he had hearings in Tabaco City was not refuted, nor was his claim that OCP-Tabaco City personnel were often unavailable. Fourthly, the respondent's assertion that attaching the complainant's title to the motion for reconsideration was unnecessary because ownership was acknowledged in a Kasunduan was not contradicted. Similarly, the destruction of police and barangay blotters due to typhoons was not denied by the complainant. Finally, the respondent promptly advised the complainant to elevate the matter to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor after the motion for reconsideration was denied, but the complainant failed to heed this advice. The Court reiterated that a disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy for a lost case, as a lawyer's engagement guarantees reasonable care and skill, not victory. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, who failed to discharge this burden by substantial evidence. Therefore, the respondent was presumed to have regularly performed his duties. On the alleged failure to serve the client with competence and diligence: The Court found no evidence of neglect of duty. While the respondent may not have won the cases, this fact alone does not equate to neglect. The respondent took steps to follow up the cases, attempted to gather required information, and provided advice for further recourse. The issues raised by the complainant regarding the non-attachment of the title and the unavailability of blotters were adequately explained by the respondent and not refuted by the complainant. The complainant's failure to pursue the recommended appellate remedy further weakened his claim of neglect. The Court emphasized that lawyers are duty-bound to serve clients with competence and diligence, but this duty does not guarantee success. The complainant failed to present substantial evidence to prove otherwise.
Main Doctrine
A disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy to be brought against a lawyer simply because a case handled for a client was lost. A lawyer's acceptance of a client or case is not a guarantee of victory, but rather an observance and exercise of reasonable degree of care and skill to protect the client's interests. Complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence to establish the facts upon which charges against respondent are based.