FLORAIDA BANARES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROSALINO C. BARICAN, RESPONDENT.

Banares versus Barican

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment. Floraida Banares charged her lawyer, Attorney Rosalino Barican, with abandoning her case — a petition for habeas corpus seeking custody of her minor child, which was dismissed after he failed to appear at the scheduled hearings. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a client's charge of abandonment when the client's own pleadings fail to deny the lawyer's material allegations: the charge collapses on the rules of pleading, not on the merits of the lawyer's conduct. It is a lesson in the discipline of specific denial.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a verified complaint with the Supreme Court, an original administrative action against a member of the Bar. The Court required the respondent to comment, and he did so under oath. The complainant replied, and the respondent filed a rejoinder. The Court then resolved the case on the pleadings as they stood, without referring it for investigation, because it found the apparent joinder of issues to be unreal.

Facts

Rolando Banares, whom the complainant claimed as her husband, died in a bus accident involving the Baron Express. In August 1973 the complainant's mother, Percida Vasquez, was referred to the respondent lawyer to pursue compensation. The Banares family, who had custody of the complainant's daughter, refused to recognize her as the lawful wife of the deceased. The respondent initially declined the custody matter, but agreed to help after the mother's insistence and his wife's intercession. Because the family had no litigation money, the Baron Express advanced funds to the complainant, to be deducted from any compensation due for Rolando's death, and the respondent prepared and filed the habeas corpus petition.

The initial hearing was reset to October 24, 1973, after Francisco Banares manifested in court that the complainant was not the lawful wife of his deceased son. On that day the complainant's mother told the respondent that the complainant's common-law husband, a Mr. Hilado, was furious over the respondent's engagement. The respondent then advised the complainant to retain another lawyer, and it was agreed that she would notify him before October 24 if his appearance was still needed, submit hospital records, and arrange a conference with her physician. She did none of these. On October 18 the mother tearfully told the respondent that his services were terminated because her daughter and her common-law husband had replaced him with another lawyer, Attorney Fortaleza. On October 22 she confirmed that the daughter would no longer avail of his services. The respondent was never paid a single centavo.

In her reply, the complainant denied soliciting his services, claimed he volunteered, and alleged a contingent-fee arrangement. She admitted securing cash advances from the Baron Express through his help. She alleged that during the initial hearing he suggested they live together as husband and wife and reminded her of a date at a place in Caloocan City, which she did not keep, after which he turned indifferent and failed to appear. The respondent denied these allegations in his rejoinder.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent lawyer abandoned his client's case, warranting administrative sanction.
• Whether or not the complainant's pleadings specifically denied the respondent's material allegations, so that those allegations are deemed admitted.

Applicable Provisions

The Court applied the rule on admissions by failure to deny specifically, as stated in the cited treatise:

If an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is deemed admitted.

This rule bears on the case because the complainant's evasive answers to the respondent's material allegations left those allegations admitted, destroying her charge of abandonment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the charge of abandonment would appear to merit investigation, but the apparent joinder of issues was unreal. Rather than frontally meeting the respondent's material allegations, the complainant evaded them or failed to deny them categorically or completely.

On the second issue, the Court applied the rule it had quoted:

If an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is deemed admitted.

The Court then walked through four material allegations. First, the complainant neither admitted nor denied that it was her mother, not she, who engaged the respondent, saying only that he volunteered. Second, she claimed she phoned him about the need for his appearance, but never stated whether she had conferred with her common-law husband on retaining or dismissing him, though the agreement to notify was predicated on that objection. Third, she did not deny that she failed to furnish the hospital records and arrange the physician's conference. Fourth, she did not deny at all that her mother twice informed the respondent that his services were terminated and that he had been replaced. In sum, her non-categorical statements amounted to an admission, requiring no proof, that the respondent did not abandon her case and that she, by herself and through her mother, dismissed him as her lawyer.

Doctrine

A charge of abandonment against counsel must be met by the respondent's material allegations squarely, and the complainant's failure to deny those allegations specifically — or a denial that is a negative pregnant — amounts to an admission requiring no proof. A client who, by herself or through her mother, terminates the lawyer's services and replaces him cannot thereafter charge him with abandoning the case. In administrative proceedings against lawyers, the complainant bears the burden of establishing the charge, and evasive pleading defeats it.

Disposition

The administrative complaint against the respondent was dismissed, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an allegation not specifically denied, or denied only by a negative pregnant, is deemed admitted — here it defeated a disbarment charge. Examiners use this case on specific denial in pleadings and on the client's burden when charging a lawyer with abandonment.