OCA CIRCULAR NO. 65-2003, May 29, 2003

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder
is the decision of the Court’s First Division in Administrative Case
No. 5841 entitled “Emily Sencio vs. Atty. Robert Calvadores” dated
January 20, 2003,
to wit:

“In a verified complaint^[1]
for disbarment filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dated 18 November 1999,
complainant Emily Sencio charged respondent Atty. Robert Calvadores with
violation of the lawyer’s oath, malpractice and gross misconduct.

Complainant Sencio alleged that sometime in 1997 her eldest son,
Herbert Sencio, died in a vehicular accident. She was referred by her
mother-in-law to respondent Calvadores to prosecute the civil aspect of
the case. On 19 May 1998 she initially gave the respondent the amount of
Pl.500.00 and promised to pay the attorney’s fees later.

On 20 August 1998, after having accumulated enough funds, the
complainant paid the respondent the amount of P12,000 as attorney’s fees
and for other expenses relating to the case. The payment was duly
acknowledged by the respondent.^[2]

From the time on, complainant Sencio regularly contacted the
respondent to update herself of the status of the case The respondent
kept on assuring her that everything would be alright. Finally, however,
complainant discovered that the respondent, did not file any case, a
fact which the respondent admitted. The latter promised to return to the
complainant the money he-had received from her.

The complainant returned several times to respondent’s house and
even patiently waited for him outside his house to get back her money.
The respondent, however, did not return to her the money. He still did
not file the case in court either.

x x x

Needless to state, a lawyer-client relationship existed between
the respondent and the complainant. As such, the respondent, under Canon
17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, owed fidelity to the caused of Ms client. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with dedication and care; less than that, he is not
true to his oath as a lawyer.^[8]
In failing to file the case he undertook to handle, the respondent
violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 18.03 thereof, which provides that ‘a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.’

Likewise, in not returning the money to the complainant after a
demand therefor was made following his failure to file the case, the
respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires that a lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of Ms client upon demand. It is settled
that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to Ms client
warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.^[9]

We also frown upon the attitude of the respondent :in not answering the complaint and in deliberately disregarding the orders and notices of the IBP on many
occasions. TMs attitude showed a character or disposition which stains
the nobility of the legal profession. He chose not to appear at the
scheduled hearings despite due notice and the warnings. Section 30 Rule
138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides:

Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension.-
No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his
profession, until he has full opportunity upon reasonable notice to
answer the charges against him to produce witness in Ms behalf, and to
be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he
fails to appear and answer the accusations, the court may proceed to
determine the matter ex parte.

x x x

In view of the foregoing, the recommendation of the IBP to suspend
the respondent and to return the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P
12,000) to the complainant is affirmed, with the modification that the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law is hereby increased to
six (6) months and that the return of the P 12,000 should be done within thirty (30) days from notice, with legal interest.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ROBERT CALVADORES is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective
immediately, and ordered to return to Emily Sencio, within thirty (30)
days from notice of this Resolution, the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12.000) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the
promulgation of this Resolution until its return. The respondent is
further warned that a commission of the same op similar act in the
future shall be dealt with more severely.”

May 29, 2003.

^[2] Annex “A” of the Complaint, Rollo, 5.

^[8] Legarda vs.Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA, 418 428 (1991)

^[9] Reyes vs. Maglaya, 243 SCRA 214, 219 (1995)