DOLORES D. PARIÑAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. OSCAR P. PAGUINTO, RESPONDENT.

Pariñas versus Paguinto

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Dolores Dryden Pariñas against her own lawyer, Attorney Oscar Paguinto, before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Pariñas had engaged him to annul her marriage, paid him part of his acceptance fee and the filing fee, and was later told that a petition had been filed and hearings scheduled — until she learned from the court itself that no such case ever existed. The case matters because it gathers, in one clean ruling, the lawyer's duties of fidelity, competence, and diligence, and it settles that a complainant's withdrawal of the charges does not by itself end a disciplinary proceeding, which belongs to the public and not to the complainant.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Commission directed Paguinto to answer. He asked for an extension of fifteen days, which was granted, but he still failed to file his answer within the extended period, and so the Commission declared him in default. After hearing, Pariñas submitted her position paper praying that he be declared guilty of violating Rule 16.01 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Pariñas then filed an affidavit of withdrawal of the complaint, and on the same day Paguinto filed a manifestation and motion apologizing and admitting that he was solely to blame. The Integrated Bar designated a commissioner to conduct the formal investigation, and the commissioner found Paguinto negligent and recommended suspension from the practice of law for six months. The case then came before the Supreme Court, which agreed with the commissioner.

Facts

Sometime in October 2001, Pariñas engaged Paguinto to annul her marriage to Danilo Soriano. They agreed on an acceptance fee of 25,000 pesos, a filing fee of 2,500 pesos, and other incidental expenses. On 2 December 2001, Pariñas paid 10,000 pesos in cash as partial payment of the acceptance fee, evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt. She gave him a diskette narrating what happened between her and her estranged husband, furnished him a copy of her marriage contract, and before the end of December 2001 gave him the 2,500 pesos for the filing fee.

Between January and April 2002, Pariñas asked about the progress of her case. Paguinto told her the case had been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 64, before Judge Ricaforte, and that the hearing was set on 25 April 2002. Before that hearing she asked for a meeting, but his secretary told her the hearing was cancelled, and that the judge had reset the hearings of 29 May 2002 and 26 June 2002 because the judge was sick or out of town.

In the first week of July 2002, Pariñas went to the trial court herself. The court personnel told her there was no such case in their court. She asked Paguinto for the case number, the date of filing, a copy of the petition, and the court where the case was pending. He told her the records were at his office and that he was in Malolos, Bulacan attending to a case. It turned out that no annulment case had ever been filed in that court. Paguinto promised to return her money, but he returned the 10,000 pesos only after she filed this complaint for disbarment.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Paguinto violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 16.01 on accounting for money collected from a client and Rule 18.03 on not neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
• Whether or not the affidavit of withdrawal executed by the complainant terminates the administrative complaint against the lawyer.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

This governs the 10,000 pesos acceptance fee and the 2,500 pesos filing fee that Paguinto received and did not use for their purpose.

Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he is not qualified to render.

This is the standard the Court invokes when it says a lawyer must accept only as many cases as he can efficiently handle.

Rule 18.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.

This bears on Paguinto's admission that he failed to timely prepare and file the petition for annulment.

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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

This is the central rule violated, because Paguinto never filed the case he had accepted and led his client to believe was pending.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the commissioner and found Paguinto negligent in performing his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. Pariñas had paid him 10,000 pesos as partial acceptance fee and 2,500 pesos for the filing fee. He led her to believe that he had filed the annulment case in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 64, before Judge Ricaforte, when he never filed it at all. On Rule 16.01, the Court held that acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause, and that money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as a filing fee, but not used because the case was not filed, must immediately be returned to the client on demand. Paguinto returned the money only after the disbarment complaint was filed. On the diligence rules, the Court held that a lawyer owes fidelity to his client's cause, that acceptance of a case is an implied representation that he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill, and ability to handle it, and that he must exert his best judgment and exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence. A lawyer must give adequate attention, care, and time to his case, and must accept only as many cases as he can efficiently handle. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Gamalinda versus Alcantara that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, and that his duty of entire devotion requires him to employ every honorable means to secure what is justly due his client. Failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code.

On the second issue, the Court held that the affidavit of withdrawal did not exonerate Paguinto. A compromise or withdrawal of charges does not terminate an administrative complaint against a lawyer, especially where the lawyer himself admitted his misconduct. The Court reiterated its ruling in Rayos-Ombac versus Rayos:

A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken solely for the public welfare. The attorney is called upon to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.

Doctrine

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. Acceptance of a case is an implied representation that he possesses the necessary diligence, learning, and skill to handle it, and he must exert his best judgment and exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in its pursuit or defense. He must give adequate attention, care, and time to every case he accepts, and must accept only as many cases as he can efficiently handle. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as a filing fee, but not used because the case was not filed, must immediately be returned to the client on demand, under Rule 16.01. Neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him renders him liable under Rule 18.03, and failure to give adequate attention to his work violates Canon 18. Finally, a withdrawal of the complaint or a compromise of the charges does not terminate a disbarment proceeding, because disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and are undertaken solely for the public welfare.

Disposition

The Court found Attorney Oscar Paguinto guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for six months, effective upon receipt of the decision, with copies furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a lawyer's acceptance of a case is an implied representation that he possesses the requisite learning, skill, and ability to handle it, and that he must give it adequate attention, care, and time. Examiners use this case for Rule 16.01 on returning unused client money, for Rule 18.03 on neglect, and for the rule that a complainant's withdrawal does not bar disbarment because the proceeding belongs to the public welfare.