OCA CIRCULAR NO. 77-2005, July 27, 2005

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is the Resolution of the Third Division dated April 22,
2005 in Administrative Case No. 5655, entitled “Valeriana U. Dalisay
vs. Atty. Melanio Mauricio, .Jr.”, to wit:

“The instant case stemmed from a
verified letter- complaint dated February 21, 2002 filed with this Court
by Valeriana U. Dalisay against Atty. Melanio “Batas” Mauricio, Jr. for
demanding and receiving exorbitant attorney’s fees but did not take any
action on her case.

In her complaint, Dalisay alleged that she was
impressed by the pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy of respondent, a
media personality. So she engaged his services as her counsel in Civil
Case No. 00-44, wherein she is the defendant, pending before the
Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal. After consulting with
respondent, she handed to him all the pertinent documents. In turn,
respondent demanded P25,000.00 as acceptance fee which she paid. Then
respondent asked her to pay P8.000.00 as filing fee. She paid the amount
although she knew that Civil Case No. 00-44 was already filed with the
court.

After a month, complainant approached respondent
to follow-up her case. Respondent demanded additional acceptance fee or a
total of P90,000.00, with the explanation that he can give a discount
should she pay in cash. Respondent also asked her to pay him P3,000.00
as appearance fee.

Complainant raised an additional amount and paid respondent the total sum of P48,000.00 filing fee, her total payment was P56,000.00.

Complainant further alleged that notwithstanding
her payments, respondent never rendered any legal service for her in
Civil Case No. 00-044. As a result, she terminated their attorney-client
relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents.
However, he refused to do so.

In his comment, respondent denied complainant’s
charge. He claimed that Atty. Oliver Lozano referred her to him to
defend her in Civil Case No. 00-044. He explained to her that she is not
covered by the free legal service being rendered by his office. Thus,
she would be treated as a regular client. Accordingly, his acceptance
fee would be One Hundred Thousand (PI00,000.00) Pesos. In addition, she
would be charged for any pleading and paper filed with the court, plus
an appearance fee of P3.000.00.

A few days later, Atty. Lozano called respondent
and asked him to reduce his acceptance fee. He then agreed and asked
only P25,000.00 for which complainant was very grateful.

Respondent denied demanding P8,000.00 as filing
fee in Civil Case No. 00-044. He clarified that such fee was intended
for another case he would file for complainant, aside from Civil Case
No. 00-044.

Respondent also alleged that he asked complainant
to bring her son-in-law to his office for a conference and to submit to
him the necessary documents to enable him to prepare the filing of the
complaints in order to protect her rights over the subject property. But
complainant did not heed his advice. Instead, she returned to his
office and told him that she was no longer interested in retaining his
services. She then demanded a refund of the amounts she paid.

According to respondent, he rendered legal
services to complainant by way of legal advice and opinions on all her
problems and those of her family. Consequently, he had every right to
collect attorney’s fees from her. He prayed that the instant complaint
be dismissed.

On September 18, 2002 , we resolved to refer this
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation.

In her Report and Recommendation dated January 13,
2004 , Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline made the following findings —

 

It is evident that for the amount of
P56 000 00 paid by the complainant as reflected in the duly signed
official receipts of respondent’s law office, no action had been taken
nor any pleadings prepared by the respondent except his alleged
conferences and opinions rendered when complainant frequented his law
office, as his legal services.

In view thereof, when complainant decided to
withdrew respondent’s services as her counsel due to inaction, it is
quite fair and incumbent upon the respondent to return whatever amount
the complainant had already paid in the amount of P56,000.00 and the
latter to compensate respondent for reasonable consultation fees due him
which was not included in their retained agreement.”

and recommended as follows:

 

“Wherefore, premises considered, it is
respectfully recommended that the complaint against Atty. Melanio
‘Batas’ Mauricio, Jr., be dismissed and the respondent be required to
refund the amount of Fifty Six. Thousand Pesos (P56,000.00) to the
complainant within two (2) months from receipt hereof, with the advice
to be more discreet and cautious in dealing with clients relative to
assessment and receipt of required fees in the future, specially those
assisted by him through referral and accommodation; otherwise severe
penalty will be imposed.

Complainant is likewise ordered to pay
respondent consultation fee equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the
whole amount of P56,000.00.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.”^[1]

On February 27, 2004 , the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2004-121 adopting and approving in toto the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Navarro.

We cannot sustain the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that this case should be dismissed.

As found by IBP Investigating Commissioner
Navarro, respondent agreed to handle Civil Case No. 00-044 on behalf of
complainant for an acceptance fee of P25,000.00 which she paid
Respondent then demanded additional acceptance fee or a total of P48 000
00, instead of P25,000.00 initially agreed upon. In addition,
respondent asked for P8,000.00 which according to him was intended as
filing fee for a new case he was supposed to file. Hence, respondent
received the total amount of P56,000.00 from complainant for his
supposed legal services.

When respondent accepted P56,000.00 from
complaint, 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 complainant with competence and attend to her case with
fidelity, care and devotion.

However, there is nothing in the records to show
that respondent entered his appearance as counsel of record for
complainant in Civil Case No. 00-044. He did not even follow- up the
case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services.

As to the P8,000.00. allegedly as docket fees for
other cases, paid to respondent by complainant, the Investigating
Commissioner found that “there was no evidence nor any pleadings
submitted to show that respondent filed any case considering that the
filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case.”

Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the body of rules governing the conduct of every member
of the Bar in this jurisdiction, provides:
 

“CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO
THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.”

More specifically, Rule 18.03 states:

“A LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER
ENTRUSTED TO HIM, AND HIS NEGLIGENCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL
RENDER HIM LIABLE.”

Also respondent’s Attorney’s Oath declares that
respondent shall impose upon himself the sacred duty, among others, 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 to courts as well as to his clients.

A member of the legal profession owes his client
entire devotion to his genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance
and defense of his rights.^[2]
An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to
protect his client s case, for his unwavering loyalty to his client
likewise serves the ends of justice. Indeed, the entrusted privilege of
every lawyer to practice law carries with it his corresponding duties,
not only to his client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the
public.

In Santos vs. Lazaro, 2 we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
above-quoted, is a basic postulate m legal ethics. Verily, 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 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.^[4]

Respondent insists that he is entitled to
attorney’s fees since he gave legal advice and opinions to complainant
on her problems and those of her family. Just like any other
professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services.
However, he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees. Canon 20 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “A lawyer
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.” There is, however, no hard
and fast rule which will serve as guide in determining what is or what
is not a reasonable fee. That must be determined from the facts of each
case.^[5] The power to
determine the reasonableness or the unconscionable character of a
lawyer’s fee is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of
the Court.^[6]

It is now clear to us that since respondent did
not take any step to assist complainant in her case, charging P56,000.00
is improper. While giving legal advice and opinion on complainant’s
problems and those of her family constitutes legal service, however, the
attorney’s fee must be reasonable. Obviously, P56,000.00 is exorbitant.

We cannot understand why respondent initially
demanded P8 000 00 as filing fee from complainant when he very well knew
that the docket fee for Civil Case No. 00-044 had been paid. If it was
intended as a docket fee for another case, why did he not file the
corresponding complaint?

By his inaction in Civil Case No. 00-044,
respondent violated Canons 17, 18 and 18.03, earlier cited, as well as
his Oath as an attorney. Likewise, in collecting from complainant
exorbitant consulting fee, respondent violated Canon 20 of the same
Code. For all these violations, respondent should be penalized.

The facts of Sencio vs. Calvadores,^[7] bear a striking similarity to the present case. Respondent lawyer Sencio did
not return the money to complainant despite demand following his
failure to file the case. 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
P21,000.00 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. Melanio Mauricio, Jr. is hereby found GUILTY of
malpractice and gross misconduct for violating Canons 17, 18, Rule
18.03 and 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s
Oath. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that
any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
He is further ordered to RETURN, within ten (10) days, also from notice,
the sum of P56,000.00 to complainant Valeriana U. Dalisay and submit to
this Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days thereform.

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

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the Decision was received by the respondent on May 4, 2005 as shown by Registry Return Receipt No. 45321.

__27__ July 2005.

	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
	Court Administrator

^[2] Agpalo, R., Legal Ethics at 157 (4th ed., 1989).

^[3] Adm. Case No. 5085, February 6,2003.

^[4] Id.

^[5] De Guzman vs. Visayan Rapid Transit, Co, Inc. 68 Phil 643,648 (1939).

^[6] Roldan vs. Court of Appeals, OR. No. 97006, February 9, 1993,218 SCRA 713.

^[7] Adm. Case No. 5841, February 20,2003.

^[8] Adm. Case Mo. 5811, January 20,2003.