OCA CIRCULAR NO. 76-2005, July 27, 2005

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Decision of the Third Division dated April 15, 2005 in
Administrative Case No. 5835, entitled “Carlos B. Reyes vs. Atty.
Jeremias R. Vitan”, to wit:

“A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence^[1]and
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. Indeed, it is his sworn
duty not to delay no man for money or malice; and to conduct himself in a
proper manner not only to his client, but also to the court, the legal
profession and society at large.^[2]

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Carlos Reyes against Atty. Jeremias Vitan for gross negligence.

The complaint alleges that sometime in June 2001, complainant
Carlos Reyes hired the services of respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan for
the purpose of filing the appropriate complaint or charge against his
sister-in-law, Estelita Reyes, and the latter’s niece, Julieta P.
Alegonza; that both women refused to abide with the Decision of Judge
Juan C. Nabong, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, in
Civil Case No. 99-92657 ordering the partition of the properties left by
complainant’s brother Damaso B. Reyes; and that respondent, after
receiving the amount of P17,000,00, did not take any action on
complainant’s case.

We referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. IBP
Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro issued several orders to respondent
directing him to file his answer to the complaint, but he failed to do
so. He only sent his secretary to represent him during the proceedings.

On April 18, 2001 ,^[3] IBP Commissioner Navarro submitted to the IBP Board of Governors her Report and Recommendation quoted as follows:

“x x x. After going over the evidence on record, the
undersigned noted that respondent ignored all the Orders issued by this
Commission and neither did he comply with any of those Orders.
Respondent even failed to submit the responsive pleadings he himself
requested in his motion and only sent his assistant secretary to
represent him in the scheduled hearings of this case. Up to and until
the present, no pleadings was submitted despite respondent’s allegations
that he was collating evidence to prove his side of the case.

It was complainant who submitted the supposed letters of the
respondent Estelita Reyes and Juliet Alegonza but there were no proofs
when they sent and when the same were received by the addressee.

Likewise, the complaint submitted by the complainant was only a
format in the sense that it was not signed by the respondent; the RTC
Branch No. was left blank; there was no Civil Case No. and there was no
proof that said pleading was filed which amounts only to a mere scrap of
paper and not a pleading or authenticated document in the legal
parlance.

As it is, nothing had been done by the respondent for the
complainant as his client for the legal fees he collected which was paid
by the complainant as reflected in the receipts issued by the
respondent in handwritten forms and signed by him.

Respondent not only violated Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of Cannon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for having neglected a legal
matter entrusted to him and did not inform complainant the status of
his case but also disregarded the orders of the Commission without
reasons which amounted to utter disrespect of authority and unethical
conduct in the practice of his profession, thus, should be sanctioned.

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing the ” undersigned
respectfully recommends that’ the respondent be suspended from the
practice of his profession for a period of two (2) years from receipt
hereof; and refund to the complainant the amount of P17,000.00 paid to
him for not having extended his legal services to the complainant on a
lawyer-client relationship within six (6) months from receipt hereof.”

On August 3, 2002 , the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution
No. XV-2002-406 adopting and approving the above Report and
Recommendation of IBP Commissioner Navarro.

When respondent accepted the amount of P17,000.00. from
complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter’s
case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was
established. From then on, it was expected of him to serve his client,
herein complainant, with competence and attend to his cause with
fidelity, care and devotion.

The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services
in handling complainant’s case and subsequently failing to render such
services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states:

“Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.”

A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion
to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of
his rights.^[4] An attorney is
expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client’s
cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise
serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice
law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client,
but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.

In Santos vs. Lazaro,^[5] we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
above-quoted, is a basic postulate in legal ethics. Indeed, when a
lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting his rights The failure to exercise that degree
of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes
such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes
him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession,
the courts and society.^[6]

Significantly, respondent also violated his oath as a
lawyer, which declares in part, that he will not delay any man for money
or malice and will conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of
his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to his client.

However, the recommended penalty by the IBP is too harsh.
Jurisprudence shows that lighter sanctions have been imposed for
violations of this nature, taking into consideration the gravity of the
offense and the necessity of preserving the integrity of the legal
profession.

The facts of Sencio vs. Calvadores^[7] bear a striking similarity to the present case. Respondent lawyer in Sencio did
not return the money to complainant despite demand following his
failure to file the case. During the proceedings before the IBP,
respondent did not file his answer to the complaint nor appeared during
the hearing notwithstanding his receipt of notices. We found him guilty
of violation of the lawyer’s oath, malpractice and gross misconduct and
suspended him for six (6) months, and ordered to return to his client
the amount of P12,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
the promulgation of our Resolution until the return of the amount.

In Garcia vs. Manuel^[8]
we suspended respondent lawyer from the practice of law for six (6)
months and ordered him to render an accounting of all monies he received
from the complainant. We found him guilty of gross misconduct.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is hereby declared guilty of violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon
notice of this Decision. He is ordered to return to complainant within
five (5) days from notice the sum of P17,000.00 with interest of 12% per
annum from the date of the promulgation of this Decision until the full
amount shall have been returned.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Court Administrator
for distribution to all courts of the land, the IBP, the Office of the
Bar Confidant, and entered into respondent’s personal records as an
attorney and as a member of the Philippine Bar.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the Decision was received by the respondent on May 13, 2005 as shown by Registry Return Receipt No. 7013.

__27__ July 2005.