Gonzales v. Fajardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Zenaida Gonzales (now deceased, represented by her son Ariel Gonzales) filed a Complaint for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Alejandro D. Fajardo, Jr. for alleged misrepresentation or deceit in the exaction of attorney's fees. Complainant retained respondent's services for 12 Land Registration Commission (LRC) cases for the titling of 12 lots. Complainant paid an acceptance fee of P500,000.00, allegedly upon assurance that the properties would be titled within three months. After three months, no titles were issued. Complainant paid appearance fees for eight hearings. Respondent allegedly threatened to stop appearing unless P66,000.00 in unpaid appearance fees was settled, and subsequently stopped attending hearings, refusing to turn over case records until fees were paid. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended that respondent be reprimanded for neglecting his client's case, finding that while Atty. Napoleon Galit negotiated the acceptance fee, respondent neglected the cases due to non-payment of appearance fees. The IBP Board of Governors reversed this, finding respondent guilty of misrepresentation and deceit, suspending him for six months, and ordering the return of the P500,000.00 acceptance fee. The IBP Board denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the IBP Board's resolution and praying for his exoneration.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Alejandro D. Fajardo, Jr. exacted an acceptance fee of P500,000.00 from complainant and misrepresented that he could secure judicial titles of the subject properties within three months from the payment of the acceptance fee. Whether respondent Atty. Alejandro D. Fajardo, Jr. neglected his client's case by ceasing to attend court hearings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Alejandro D. Fajardo, Jr. guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was admonished to be circumspect in his future dealings and treatment of clients, and sternly warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court reversed the IBP Board's finding of misrepresentation and deceit regarding the acceptance fee and timeline, but upheld the finding of neglect of duty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misrepresentation and deceit regarding the acceptance fee and timeline: The Court found the contention of the respondent meritorious. The legal presumption is that an attorney is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof rests on the complainant, requiring clear preponderant evidence. The Court noted that complainant engaged the services of the Galit Law Office, and Atty. Napoleon Galit, not respondent, negotiated the P500,000.00 acceptance fee. Atty. Galit's affidavit confirmed that he introduced respondent to complainant after the fees were agreed upon, and the voucher for the acceptance fee was in Atty. Galit's name. Therefore, respondent could not be held liable for misrepresentation or deceit concerning the negotiation of the fee or the timeline for titling, as these were handled by Atty. Galit. The Court also found it difficult to believe that Atty. Galit assured complainant of titles within three months from payment, deeming it an unworkable task, and gave more weight to respondent's version that the timeline was three months from submission for decision. On the issue of neglect of client's case: The Court was not persuaded by complainant's denial of an agreement for appearance fees, noting her admission of paying for the first eight court appearances. The Court concluded that complainant stopped paying appearance fees not due to absence of agreement, but because the titling did not meet her expected timeline. Respondent ceased attending hearings after complainant's non-payment of appearance fees from September 2007 until February 2009. While the Court understood respondent's predicament, it held that he should have waited for the court to grant his Manifestation/Motion before ceasing to attend hearings, to avoid leaving his client hanging. This act breached his duty to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to his client, and disregarded Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit neglect of a legal matter. The Court found it proper to merely admonish respondent, considering the factual milieu and the absence of deceit in the exaction of fees.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to attend court hearings due to non-payment of appearance fees, despite having been retained, may be found liable for neglect of duty under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, even if not found guilty of misrepresentation or deceit in the exaction of fees. However, the penalty may be mitigated to admonition if there is no showing of deceit and the primary cause of non-appearance was the client's non-payment.