HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

Voluntad-Ramirez versus Bautista

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or disciplinary action filed by Herminia P. Voluntad-Ramirez against Atty. Rosario B. Bautista. The complainant charges the respondent with violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.02, and Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, violation of the lawyer's oath, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of what a lawyer owes a client the moment an acceptance fee is paid: competence and diligence. It also shows how the Court calibrates the penalty, and when restitution of the acceptance fee is proper.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her sworn complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline found the respondent guilty of violation of the lawyer's oath, Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and grave misconduct. The Commissioner recommended suspension for one year with a stern warning, and ordered the respondent to refund 14,000 pesos to the complainant.

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved the Commissioner's report with modification, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for six months and ordering restitution of 14,000 pesos. The respondent moved for reconsideration. The Board partially granted the motion and lowered the penalty from six months of suspension to admonition. The case then came before the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Board's resolution.

Facts

On 25 November 2002, the complainant engaged the respondent to file a complaint against her siblings for encroachment of her right of way. The respondent asked for 15,000 pesos as acceptance fee, plus 1,000 pesos per court appearance, and the complainant paid the acceptance fee. The day after he was hired, the respondent wrote a letter to the City Engineer of Navotas City concerning her case. He claimed he made follow-ups with that office and even filed a case against the City Engineer for nonfeasance, although he submitted no evidence of that filing.

On 29 May 2003, six months after hiring him, the complainant severed the respondent's services because no complaint had been filed within a reasonable time. She retrieved from him the folder of documents and letters pertaining to her case. She was dissatisfied because, during those six months, the respondent had only sent a letter to the City Engineer's Office.

On 8 March 2004, the complainant wrote the respondent reiterating the termination of his services and demanding the refund of 14,000 pesos out of the 15,000 peso acceptance fee, since she had been compelled to hire another counsel. The respondent refused a full refund, claiming the acceptance fee is non-refundable because it covers research, time, and office supplies. He said he offered a fifty percent discount and signified willingness to refund 9,000 pesos. No refund was made, and the complaint followed. In her reply, the complainant showed that her case had already been referred to the barangay, and that a Certification to File Action had been issued on 1 July 2002, months before she engaged the respondent. The respondent said she never told him of the certification and that it was not in the folder.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the complainant's case.
• Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility on the turnover of the client's papers and property.
• Whether or not the complainant is entitled to restitution of 14,000 pesos out of the 15,000 peso acceptance fee.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

This is the general duty the respondent is found to have breached.

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 specific rule under which the Court holds the respondent liable.

Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

The Court uses this rule to test the turnover of the folder, and finds no violation because the respondent returned it at once.

Article 222 of the Civil Code, which the respondent invoked as his excuse for delay, provides:

No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035.

The Court rejects this excuse because the required barangay conciliation had already been completed before the respondent was hired.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirms the finding that the respondent breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and is guilty of violating Rule 18.03. Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee, he is expected to serve his client with competence and to attend to the cause with diligence, care, and devotion. The respondent blamed his delay on the absence of barangay conciliation, but the Certification to File Action issued on 1 July 2002, more than four months before he was engaged, belied that excuse. His claim that the complainant never told him of the certification was hard to believe, given her determination to sue her siblings. Clearly, he was negligent.

On the second issue, the Court does not find the respondent guilty of violating Rule 22.02, because he immediately turned over to the complainant the folder containing the documents and letters pertaining to her case upon the severance of his services.

On the third issue, the Court agrees with the Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors that a refund is in order. Apart from sending a letter to the City Engineer of Navotas City, the respondent did nothing more to advance his client's cause during the six months he was engaged. The Court notes its earlier ruling in Cariño versus De Los Reyes, where a lawyer who failed to file a complaint-affidavit restituted the acceptance fee paid to him and was reprimanded.

Doctrine

A lawyer who accepts an acceptance fee undertakes to serve the client with competence and diligence, and to champion the cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him renders him liable under Rule 18.03. A lawyer may not excuse delay by invoking a condition that had already been satisfied before he was engaged. The duty under Rule 22.02 to turn over the client's papers and property is discharged by an immediate turnover upon withdrawal or discharge. Where a lawyer accepts a fee but performs almost nothing, restitution of the fee is proper, and the penalty may range from admonition to suspension depending on the circumstances.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the Board's resolution, found Atty. Bautista guilty of violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03, admonished him to exercise greater care and diligence, and ordered him to restitute 14,000 pesos to the complainant.

Remember This

Memorize the line: once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee, he is expected to serve his client with competence and diligence. Examiners use this case to test the duty of diligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.03, the turnover duty under Rule 22.02, and the propriety of restitution of the acceptance fee.