MA LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO, RESPONDENT.

“Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts
and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client’s cause.  A lawyer who performs that duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his client; he also
serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession.  This is so because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar or to
the public.  That circumstance explains the
public concern for the maintenance of an untarnished standard of conduct by
every attorney towards his client.”^[1]

Subject of this administrative complaint is Humberto
V. Potenciano, a practicing lawyer and a member of
the Philippine Bar under Roll No. 21862. 
He is charged with deceit,
fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and
of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.

The essential facts are
as follows:^[2]

Complainant herein is the sister of Peregrina
Cantiller, defendant in an action for “ejectment” docketed as Civil Case No. 6046 before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 57, San Juan,
Metro Manila.

Another action, likewise involving Peregrina
but this time as plaintiff, was then pending before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 168, Pasig,
Metro Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 54117 for “reconveyance
with damages.” Both actions involve the apartment unit being rented by
complainant and her sister.

When the two cases were
concluded, Peregrina came out the losing party.  Civil Case No. 54117 for reconveyance
was ordered dismissed by the Regional Trial Court on June 8, 1987
while Civil Case No. 6046 for ejectment was decided
by the Metropolitan Trial Court against her.

On October 8, 1987,
pursuant to the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 6046 for ejectment, complainant and Peregrina
were served a notice to vacate the rented premises within four (4) days from
receipt of notice.

Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a certain
Sheriff Pagalunan on the matter.  Pagalunan, in turn,
introduced them to herein respondent. 
After such introduction, the parties “impliedly agreed” that
respondent would handle their case. 
Forthwith, a petition entitled “Annulment of Judgment, Annulment of
Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo
Order, etc.” was prepared by respondent to forestall the execution of the
order to vacate in Civil Case No. 6046.

In the afternoon of October
9, 1987, the complainant was made to sign by respondent what she
described as a “[h]astily prepared, poorly
conceived, and haphazardly composed”^[3]
petition for annulment of judgment. 
Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that the necessary
restraining order would be secured if only because the judge who would hear the
matter was his
“katsukaran” (close friend).

Thereupon, the petition
was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig, Metro Manila and docketed as Civil Case No. 55118.  Respondent demanded from the complainant one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) as attorney’s fee which the latter paid that same
afternoon.

However, when the case
was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding judge asked respondent to
withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship.

On October 11, 1987,
respondent went to the house of complainant and asked her to be ready with two
thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to be given to another judge who will issue the
restraining order in the ejectment case (Civil Case
No. 6046).  Complainant and her sister
were only able to raise the amount of one thousand pesos which they immediately
gave to respondent.

Later respondent informed
the complainant and her sister that he could not locate the judge who would
issue the restraining order.  The
parties, then, instead went to the Max’s Restaurant where respondent ordered
some food – including two plastic bags of food allegedly to be given to the
judge who would issue the restraining order. 
At this juncture, respondent asked for the remaining balance of the two
thousand pesos (P2,000.00) which he earlier demanded.  Complainant gave her last money – a ten
dollar ($10.00) bill.

Sometime after the filing
of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them
to regain possession of the apartment. 
For this purpose, respondent told
complainant to prepare the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) allegedly
to be deposited with the Treasurer’s Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and
another one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to cover the expenses of the suit.  Respondent stressed to the complainant the
need and urgency of filing the new complaint.

Complainant and Peregrina raised the
said amounts through the kindness of some friends and relatives.  On October
26, 1987, the money was handed over to the respondent.

On the same date, a complaint for “Specific Performance,
Annulment of Simulated or Spurious Sale with Damages,” later docketed as
Civil Case No. 55210, was filed by respondent with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 165,
Pasig,
Metro Manila.

At the hearing of the
preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 on October 30, 1987, respondent, contrary to his promise
that he would secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as counsel
for complainant.  Complainant was not able to get
another lawyer as replacement.  Thus, no
restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained.  As a consequence, the order to vacate in
Civil Case No. 6046 was eventually enforced and executed.

Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant’s knowledge that
there was really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
relative to Civil Case No. 55210.  After
further inquiry, she found out that in fact there was no such deposit
made.  Thus, on December 23, 1987, complainant sent a demand
letter to respondent asking for the return of the total amount of eleven
thousand pesos (P11,000.00) which the former earlier gave to the latter.  However, this letter was never answered and
the money was never returned.  Hence,
complainant lodged this administrative complaint against herein respondent.

Meanwhile, on December
29, 1987, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, dismissed Civil
Case No. 55118 for failure to state a cause
of action.^[4]
On January 20, 1988, Civil Case No.
55210 was likewise
dismissed for being identical with Civil Case No. 55118.^[5]

Respondent in his answer contends that the filing of Civil Cases
Nos. 55118 and 55210 was done in good faith and that the allegations of
complainant relative to the administrative charge against him are all lies,
product of one’s imagination and only intended to harrass
him.^[6]

This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases Nos. 55118
and 55210 appear to be poorly prepared and written.  Having represented himself capable of picking
up the cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should
have carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his
representation.  The little time involved
is no excuse.  Complainant reposed full
faith in him.  His first duty was to file
the best pleading within his
capability.  Apparently, respondent was
more interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a
hopeless situation.  He bragged about his
closeness to the judge concerned in one case and talked about the need to
“buy” the restraining order in the other.  Worse still he got P10,000.00 as alleged
deposit in court which he never deposited. 
Instead he pocketed the same.  The
pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious.

When a lawyer takes a
client’s cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion. 
The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client’s
cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on
him. 
The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary
principles of professional ethics.^[7]

The Court finds that
respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s
interests.  Respondent had knowledge
beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case No.
55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship.  Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took
no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.

Even assuming that
respondent had no previous knowledge that he would be asked to withdraw, the
record is quite clear that four (4) days prior to the hearing of the
preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 respondent already filed a
motion therein withdrawing as complainant’s counsel interposing as reason therefor his frequent attacks of pain due to
hemorrhoids.  Despite this void,
respondent failed to find a replacement. 
He did not even ask complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead.^[8]

His actuation is
definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost dedication the
interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes
his client.^[9] More so in this case, where by reason of his
gross negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all her cases.

The filing of Civil Case
No. 55210 on October 26, 1987, the same day that he had already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for complainant
in Civil Case No. 55118, reveals his lack of good faith as an advocate.  He also failed to appear for the complainant
in said case.  It was all a show to get more money from her.  This adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law.  When confronted with this
evident irregularity, he lamely stated that while he did not physically appear
for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted the pleadings.

His services were engaged
by complainant hoping that the property subject of the ejectment
proceeding would be returned to her.  In
fact, it was respondent who persuaded complainant that the filing of these two
cases simultaneously were the means by which this objective can be achieved.  His duty was not only to prepare the
pleadings but to represent complainant until the termination of the cases.  This he failed to do.

His representation that there was an immediate need to file Civil
Case No. 55210 when he already knew that he could no longer physically handle
the same is an act of deception of his client.^[10]
It shows lack of fidelity to his oath of office as a member of the Philippine
bar.

The allegation of respondent that the ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) was given to him as fee for his services, is simply
incredible.  Indeed, such amount is
grossly disproportionate with the service he actually rendered.^[11]
And his failure to return even a portion of the amount upon demand of
complainant all the more bolsters the protestation of complainant that
respondent does not deserve to
remain as an officer of the court.

Lawyers are an indispensable part of the whole system of
administering justice in this jurisdiction. 
At a time when strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the
legal profession, strict compliance with one’s oath of office and the canons of
professional ethics is an imperative.

Lawyers should be fair,
honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their
clients.  The profession is not
synonymous with an ordinary business proposition.  It is a matter of public interest.

WHEREFORE, after considering the entirety of the
circumstances present in this case, this Court finds Atty. Humberto
V. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges against him
and hereby SUSPENDS him from the
practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate
that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.

Finally, respondent is
hereby ordered to return to complainant herein the sum of eleven thousand pesos
(P11,000.00) with legal interest from the date of this resolution until it is
actually returned.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea,
and Regalado,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 3rd ed. (Law Publishing
House, 1985), page 153.

^[2]
Pages 1-13, Rollo.

^[3]
Page 2, Rollo.

^[4]
Pages 26-32, Record.

^[5]
Pages 39-40, Supra.

^[6]
Pages 48-51, Rollo.

^[7]
In re Yeager, 56 Phil 691 (1932).

^[8]
Page 11, Report.

^[9]
Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.

^[10]
Sta. Maria vs. Tuason, 11 SCRA 562 (1964).

^[11]
Canon 22, Code of Professional Responsibility.