33 Rollon v Naraval

7/24/2019 33 Rollon v Naraval

1/11

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 6424. March 4, 2005.]

CONSORCIA S. ROLLON, complainant,vs. Atty. CAMILO NARAVAL,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN,J p:

Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. The latter's money orother property coming into the former's possessionshould be deemed to be held in trust and should notunder any circumstance be commingled with the lawyers'own; much less, used by them. Failure to observe theseethical principles constitutes professional misconduct and

justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

The Case and the Facts

Before us is a letter-complaint against Atty. CamiloNaraval, filed by Consorcia S. Rollon with the Davao CityChapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) onNovember 29, 2001. The Affidavit 1 submitted bycomplainant alleges the following:

"Sometime in October of 2000, I went to theoffice of Atty. Camilo F. Naraval together withmy son, Freddie Rollon, to seek hisassistance in a case filed against me beforethe Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 6,


2/11

Davao City entitled 'Rosita Julaton vs.Consorcia S. Rollon' for Collection of Sum ofMoney with Prayer for Attachment;

"After going over the documents I broughtwith me pertaining to the said case, Atty.Naraval agreed to be my lawyer and I wasrequired to pay the amount of EightThousand Pesos (Php 8,000.00) for the filingand partial service fee, which amount waspaid by me on October 18, 2000, a copy ofthe Official Receipt is hereto attached asAnnex 'A' to form part hereof;iatdcjur

"As per the instruction of Atty. Naraval, myson, Freddie, returned to his office thefollowing week to make follow-up on saidcase. However, I was informed later by myson Freddie that Atty. Naraval was not able toact on my case because the latter was sobusy. Even after several follow-ups were

made with Atty. Naraval, still there was noaction done on our case;

"Sometime in November 29, 2001, I decidedto withdraw the amount I paid to Atty.Naraval, because of the latter's failure tocomply with our mutual agreement that hewill assist me in the above-mentioned case;

"My son Freddie Rollon went to Atty.Naraval's office that same day to inform Atty.Naraval of our decision to withdraw theamount I have paid and to retrieve mydocuments pertaining to said case.Unfortunately, despite our several follow-ups,


3/11

Atty. Naraval always said that he cannotreturn the documents because they were intheir house, and that he could not give usback the amount we paid him (Php 8,000.00)

because he has no money;

"Having failed to obtain any response, Idecided to refer the matter to Atty. RamonEdison Batacan, IBP President of Davao Cityand to Atty. Pedro Castillo, the Commissioneron Bar D[i]scipline;

xxx xxx xxx."

In an Order dated March 12, 2002, 2the IBP Commissionon Bar Discipline (CBD), through Director Victor C.Fernandez, directed respondent to submit his answer tothe Complaint. The same directive was reiterated in theCBD's May 31, 2002 Order 3 issued throughCommissioner Jovy C. Bernabe. Respondent did not fileany answer despite his receipt of the Orders. 4

Not having heard from him despite adequate notice, theCBD proceeded with the investigation ex parte. Its Order5 dated November 11, 2002, issued throughCommissioner Bernabe, required complainant to submither position paper within ten days from receipt thereof,after which the case was to be deemed submitted forresolution.

The CBD received complainant's Position Paper 6 onDecember 10, 2002.

Report of the Investigating Commissioner

In his Report and Recommendation dated October 16,


4/11

2003, Investigating Commissioner Acerey C. Pachecorecommended that respondent be suspended from thepractice of law for one (1) year for neglect of duty and/orviolation of Canons 15 and 18 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility. The Report reads in part asfollows:

"Canon 18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility requires every lawyer to servehis client with utmost dedication, competenceand diligence. He must not neglect a legalmatter entrusted to him, and his negligence in

this regard renders him administrativelyliable. . . .

"In the case at bar, the deplorable conduct ofthe respondent in misrepresenting to thecomplainant that he will render legal servicesto her, and after receiving certain amountfrom the latter as payment for 'filing fee andservice fee' did nothing in return, has caused

unnecessary dishonor to the bar. By his ownconduct the respect of the community to thelegal profession, of which he swore toprotect, has been tarnished.

xxx xxx xxx

"In fact, complainant claimed to have beenshortchanged by the respondent when he

failed to properly appraised her of the statusof her case which she later on found to havebecome final and executory. Apparently, thecivil suit between Rosita Julaton and thecomplainant have been decided against thelatter and which judgment has long become


5/11

final and executory. However, despite fullknowledge by the respondent of such finalitybased on the documents furnished to him,respondent withheld such vital information

and did not properly appraise thecomplainant. Thus, respondent violated themandate in Canon 15 . . . " 7

IBP Board of Governors' Resolution

On February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governorsissued Resolution No. XVI-2004-64 upholding the above-quoted Report. The Board recommended the suspension

of respondent from the practice of law for two (2) yearsfor violation of Rules 15 and 18 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility and the restitution ofcomplainant's P8,000.

The Court's Ruling

We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board ofGovernors.

Respondent's Administrative Liability

Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either asadvisers or as advocates of any person who may wish tobecome their client. 8They may decline employment andrefuse to accept representation, if they are not in aposition to carry it out effectively or competently. 9 Butonce they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required

by the Canons of Professional Responsibility toundertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.10

Acceptance of money from a client establishes anattorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of


6/11

fidelity to the client's cause. 11Every case accepted by alawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill andcompetence, regardless of importance. 12 The Code ofProfessional Responsibility clearly states:

CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to thecause of his client and he shall be mindful ofthe trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his clientwith competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a

legal matter entrusted to him and hisnegligence in connection therewith shallrender him liable.

Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep his clientinformed of the status of his case and shallrespond within a reasonable time to theclient's request for information.

Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as manycases as they can efficiently handle. 13 Otherwise, theirclients would be prejudiced. Once lawyers agree tohandle a case, they should undertake the task withdedication and care. If they do any less, then they failtheir lawyer's oath. 14

The circumstances of this case indubitably show that

after receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and partialservice fee, respondent failed to render any legal servicein relation to the case of complainant. His continuousinaction despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals hiscavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward hisclient's cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a


7/11

lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, healso unjustifiably failed to return to her the files of thecase that had been entrusted to him. To top it all, he keptthe money she had likewise entrusted to him.

Furthermore, after going through her papers, respondentshould have given her a candid, honest opinion on themerits and the status of the case. Apparently, the civilsuit between Rosita Julaton and complainant had beendecided against the latter. In fact, the judgment had longbecome final and executory. But he withheld such vitalinformation from complainant. Instead, he demanded

P8,000 as "filing and service fee" and thereby gave herhope that her case would be acted upon. cCHITA

Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibilityrequires that lawyers give their candid and best opinionto their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case,neither overstating nor understating their evaluationthereof. Knowing whether a case would have some

prospect of success is not only a function, but also anobligation on the part of lawyers. 15 If they find that theirclient's cause is defenseless, then it is their boundenduty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, ratherthan to traverse the incontrovertible. 16 The failure ofrespondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes aviolation of his duty to "observe candor, fairness andloyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his

clients." 17

Likewise, as earlier pointed out, respondent persistentlyrefused to return the money of complainant despite herrepeated demands. His conduct was clearly indicative oflack of integrity and moral soundness; he was clinging to


8/11

something that did not belong to him, and that heabsolutely had no right to keep or use. 18

Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their client's money

and property that may come into their possession. 19Asrespondent obviously did nothing on the case ofcomplainant, the amount she had given as evidencedby the receipt issued by his law office was neverapplied to the filing fee. His failure to return her moneyupon demand gave rise to the presumption that he hadconverted it to his own use and thereby betrayed thetrust she had reposed in him. 20 His failure to do so

constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and abetrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. 21

The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect forlaw, legal processes and the courts, 22but also mandatesthe utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing

with the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to theirfiduciary relationship. 23 Respondent clearly fell short ofthe demands required of him as a member of the bar. Hisinability to properly discharge his duty to his client makeshim answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, tothe legal profession, and to the general public. 24Giventhe crucial importance of his role in the administration of

justice, his misconduct diminished the confidence of the

public in the integrity and dignity of the profession. 25

WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY ofviolating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of theCode of Professional Responsibility and is herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two


9/11

(2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision.Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE, withinthirty (30) days from notice of this Decision,complainant's eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plusinterest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum,from October 18, 2000, until fully paid. Let copies of thisDecision be furnished all courts, the Office of the BarConfidant, as well as the National Office and the DavaoCity Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Choco-Nazario and Garcia,JJ.,concur.

Carpio Morales, J.,is on leave.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 5.

2. Id., p. 15.

3. Id., p. 18.

4. The March 12, 2002 Order was received on March 27,2002; and the May 31, 2002 Order, on June 6,

2002. See Registry Return Receipt attached to theOrders.

5. Rollo, p. 19.

6. Id., pp. 20-24.


10/11

7. Report and Recommendation filed on June 3, 2004, pp.5-7.

8. Cuizon v. Macalino, AC No. 4334, July 7, 2004; De Juan

v. Baria III, AC No. 5817, May 27, 2004.

9. See Rule 18.01, Code of Professional Responsibility,which provides in part. "A lawyer shall not undertakea legal service which he knows or should know thathe is not qualified to render. . . ."

10. Fernandez v. Cabrera II, AC No. 5623, December 11,2003.

11. Parias v. Paguinto, AC No. 6297, July 13, 2004;Fernandez v. Cabrera II, supra; Emiliano CourtTownhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda,399 SCRA 296, March 20, 2003.

12. Schulz v. Flores, AC No. 4219, December 8, 2003(citing In re: Atty. David Briones, 415 Phil. 203,August 15, 2001; Santiago v. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68,

September 7, 1995).

13. Parias v. Paguinto, supra; Moton v. Atty. Cadiao, 377Phil. 1, November 24, 1999.

14. The Lawyer's Oath declares in part: ". . . I will delay noman for money or malice, and will conduct myself asa lawyer according to the best of my knowledge anddiscretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts

as to my clients; and I impose upon myself thisvoluntary obligation without any mental reservationor purpose of evasion. So help me God." See 3,Rule 138, Rules of Court.

15.Agpalo, Legal Ethics(1992, 5th ed.), p. 152.


11/11

16. Castaeda v. Ago, 65 SCRA 505, July 30, 1975.

17. Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility.

18. SeeIgual v. Javier, 324 Phil. 698, March 7, 1996.

19. Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility;Barnachea v. Quiocho, 399 SCRA 1, March 11,2003.

20. Schulz v. Flores, supra; Barnachea v. Quiocho, supra;Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419, June28, 2001.

21. Barnachea v. Quiocho, supra; Burbe v. Magulta, 383SCRA 276, June 10, 2002; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty.Baterina, supra; Gonato v. Adaza, 385 Phil. 426,March 27, 2000.

22. "CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,obey the laws of the land and promote respect forlaw and for legal processes."

23. Berbano v. Barcelona, 410 SCRA 258, September 3,2003; Igual v. Javier, supra.

24. Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Associationv. Dioneda, supra.

25. Grande v. De Silva, 407 SCRA 310, July 29, 2003.

2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Click herefor our Disclaimer and CopyrightNotice

33 Rollon v Naraval

Documents

Transcript of 33 Rollon v Naraval