ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, RESPONDENT.

Solidon versus Macalalad

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Atty. Elmer C. Solidon against Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad, both members of the Philippine Bar. Atty. Solidon charges Atty. Macalalad with negligence in handling a judicial titling matter that he accepted for a fee, and with failure to account for and return the money he received. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the fiduciary duty of a lawyer once an engagement for legal services is accepted, and of how the Supreme Court treats the mere failure to perform that duty as a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Investigating Commissioner Randall C. Tabayoyong rendered a Report and Recommendation dated June 25, 2008, finding Atty. Macalalad negligent for failing to file the application despite the lapse of about a year from the time his services were engaged. Acting on that recommendation, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed a resolution dated July 17, 2008, adopting and approving the report with modification, suspending Atty. Macalalad from the practice of law for three months and ordering him to return 50,000 pesos with twelve percent interest per annum. The case then came before the Supreme Court for final action, because the Integrated Bar had imposed the penalty of suspension.

Facts

Atty. Macalalad was the Chief of the Legal Division of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Regional Office 8, in Tacloban City. Although in public service, he had been given authority by the department secretary to engage in the practice of law. In October 2005, while on official visit to Eastern Samar, he was introduced to Atty. Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz Cabo-Borata. Atty. Solidon asked him to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land in Borongan, Eastern Samar, owned by Atty. Solidon's relatives.

For a consideration of 80,000 pesos, Atty. Macalalad accepted the task, to be completed within eight months. He received 50,000 pesos as initial payment, with the remaining 30,000 pesos payable upon delivery of the certificate of title. No petition for registration was ever filed.

Six months after paying, Atty. Solidon tried to follow up through phone calls, text messages, and finally a letter sent by courier, but received no communication. Ms. Cabo-Borata, in her affidavit, narrated that she repeatedly followed up with Atty. Macalalad and received no clear-cut answers, only that everything was on process. Atty. Macalalad claimed the delay was caused by his clients' failure to communicate and to furnish the needed documentary evidence, and that he had already prepared a draft of the petition. The Investigating Commissioner found his negligence uncontroverted.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Macalalad is guilty of negligence in handling the legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not Atty. Macalalad failed to account for and promptly return the money he received from his client, in violation of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines should be modified.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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

This is the rule the Court construes, holding that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation.

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

This rule bears on the Court's finding that Atty. Macalalad did not immediately account for and promptly return the money he received even after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Integrated Bar's factual findings and legal conclusions. In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence, which the complainant has the burden to discharge, and the Court was fully satisfied that the evidence met that standard. The Court held that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation of Rule 18.03. It rejected the defense that the clients failed to communicate, because it was the lawyer's duty to communicate with them, and because Atty. Solidon and Ms. Cabo-Borata had in fact tried their best to reach him. The circumstance that the client was also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for his negligence.

On the second issue, the Court found Atty. Macalalad also guilty of violating Rule 16.01, since he did not immediately account for and promptly return the money he received even after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time.

On the third issue, the Court modified the recommended penalty by increasing the period of suspension from three months to six months, following its lead in Pariñas versus Paguinto, where a six-month suspension was imposed for violations of Rule 16.01 and Rule 18.03.

Doctrine

A lawyer who accepts an engagement for legal services bears the responsibility of protecting the client's interest with utmost diligence. The mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation of Rule 18.03, which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The client's own fault does not exonerate the lawyer, because as between the client and his lawyer, the latter has more control in handling the case. And under Rule 16.01, a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client; failure to account for and promptly return the money after rendering no service is a separate violation.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the resolution of the Board of Governors with modification, suspending Atty. Macalalad from the practice of law for six months effective upon finality of the decision, ordering him to return 50,000 pesos with twelve percent interest per annum from the date of promulgation until full payment, and sternly warning him that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation of Rule 18.03. Examiners like to use this case to test the fiduciary duty of a lawyer who accepts a fee and then neglects the matter, and to test whether the client's own fault can excuse the lawyer, which it cannot.