Carino v. De los Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Katrina Cariño alleged that she hired respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes to file criminal complaints for slander by deed, threats, and physical injuries against her relatives. Complainant paid an acceptance fee of P10,000.00. However, respondent allegedly failed to file the complaint-affidavits with the prosecutor's office. Meanwhile, the relatives filed countercharges against complainant and her father, for which informations were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 41, Quezon City. Complainant claimed respondent failed to protect their interests in these countercharges. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was filed by Katrina Cariño against Atty. Arturo de los Reyes before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP investigated the matter and, in its Resolution No. XIV-2000-460 dated July 29, 2000, dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The case reached the Supreme Court via a petition for review of the IBP's resolution. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for review under Rule 139-B, §12(c) of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the IBP's resolution dismissing the complaint. The petitioner argues that the IBP erred in finding insufficient evidence, asserting that the respondent neglected his legal duty by failing to file the criminal complaints as agreed. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found the respondent's explanation for his inaction to be flimsy, concluding that he failed to exercise the required diligence and fidelity to his client's cause.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes was guilty of inexcusable negligence in handling the legal matter entrusted to him by complainant Katrina Cariño. Whether the dismissal of the complaint by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the Resolution No. XIV-2000-460 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dated July 29, 2000. Respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes was reprimanded with a warning to be henceforth more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes guilty of inexcusable negligence. The complainant's detailed narration of events, including specific dates and conversations, was found to be credible and controverted by respondent's flimsy explanation. The Court noted that respondent's claim of being hired for a partition case was improbable given the timing of his engagement, which was shortly after the incident giving rise to criminal charges. Respondent's failure to present corroborating evidence, such as affidavits from his wife or Lily Jodloman, further weakened his defense. The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of a client and must serve with competence and diligence, as mandated by Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent's conduct, including his evasiveness and attempts to evade responsibility, fell short of these professional standards. The fact that he is a member of the IBP commission investigating similar complaints made his failure to uphold his duty even more egregious. On Issue 2: The Court disagreed with the IBP's finding of insufficient evidence and reversed its resolution. The IBP's conclusion that the complainant's evidence was inadequate was found to be unsubstantiated, especially in light of the detailed account provided by the complainant, which the respondent failed to effectively rebut. The Court found the respondent's explanation that he was hired for a partition case, and not for the criminal complaints, to be improbable. The Court also pointed out that the respondent could have easily presented affidavits from his wife or Lily Jodloman to support his claims, but he did not. Therefore, the IBP's dismissal of the complaint was deemed erroneous, and the Supreme Court took it upon itself to impose the appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer is bound by Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and any negligence in connection therewith renders him liable. This duty includes serving the client with competence and diligence, and championing the client's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. While the return of acceptance fees may mitigate the penalty, it does not erase the lawyer's liability for professional misconduct arising from such negligence.