You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No.

7902 September 30, 2008

<pon the e;ecution of the Retaine Ag eement, the complainant paid the espondent <"*34,C7>.66 th ough teleg aphic ban- t ansfe ,C as full pa(ment fo the se vices to be ende ed unde the Ag eement. %he espondent then assu ed the complainant that he /ould ta-e good ca e of the cases he /as handling fo the complainant.9 ,n Ap il 33, 5664, fou months afte the e;ecution of the Retaine Ag eement, the complainant, th ough his business pa tne 'ohn B adle(, demanded f om the espondent a epo t of the action he had ta-en /ith espect to the cases ent usted to him. Do/eve , despite his continued effo ts to contact the espondent to in1ui e on the status of the cases, he /as unable to each him: his phone calls /e e not ans/e ed and his elect onic mails /e e igno ed.36 %he complainant had no -no/ledge of the developments of the cases that the espondent /as handling fo him. <pon his o/n in1ui (, he /as disma(ed to find out that the espondent did not file his ent ( of appea ance in the cases fo ,the )ight %h eats and &iolation of "ection 7@aA of the Anti!&iolence Against Bomen and Child en Act.33 %he espondent also did not info m him that he /as entitled to p epa e a Counte !Affidavit to ans/e the complaint fo ,the )ight %h eats. %he complainant had no -no/ledge that the e had al ead( been a aignments fo the c iminal cases against him, and that the e /e e al ead( /a ants of a est35 issued fo his failu e to attend the a aignments. De /as const ained to engage the se vices of anothe la/(e in o de to file a Motion to )ift the Ba ant of A est in the case fo ,the )ight %h eats,3= and an ,mnibus Motion to Revive the Case and )ift the Ba ant of A est in the case fo &iolation of "ection 7@aA of the Anti!&iolence Against Bomen and %hei Child en Act.3> %he complainant alleges that the espondent did not do a single thing /ith espect to the cases cove ed unde the Retaine Ag eement. Not onl( did the espondent fail to ente his appea ance in the c iminal cases filed against the complainant, he also neglected to file an ent ( of appea ance in the civil case fo Mandamus, +n2unction and *amages that the complainant filed. %he espondent also did not file a Comment on the complaint fo +llegal Possession of 8i ea ms /hich /as dismissed and unde evie/ at the *epa tment of 'ustice.37 *ue to the above lapses of the espondent, on Novembe 5?, 5664, the complainant / ote the espondent and demanded the etu n of the documents /hich /e e tu ned ove to him, as /ell as the PhP966,666.66 that /as paid in conside ation of the cases he /as supposed to handle fo the complainant.34 Do/eve , complainant /as unable to get an( /o d f om the espondent despite epeated and continuous effo ts to get in touch /ith him. Dence, on *ecembe 5C, 5664, %o ben ,ve gaa d /as const ained to file an administ ative complaint against Att(. .od/in R. &alde# befo e the +nteg ated Ba of the Philippines, alleging that the espondent engaged in unla/ful, dishonest, immo al and deceitful conduct.3? *espite the o de to submit an Ans/e to the complaint against him,3C the espondent failed to compl(. A Mandato ( Confe ence /as set on "eptembe 53, 566?,39 but the espondent failed to attend despite being dul( notified. 56 %his p ompted the Commission on Ba *iscipline to issue an

TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, Complainant, vs. ATT . GOD!"N R. VA#DE$, Respondent. Puno, CJ., Quisumbing, Yna es!"antiago, Ca pio, Aust ia! Ma tine#, Co ona,$ Ca pio Mo ales, A#cuna, %inga, Chico! Na#a io, &elasco, ' ., Nachu a, Re(es, )eona do!*e Cast o, Andb ion, JJ. *EC+"+,N PER CURIAM: Complainant see-s the disba ment of Att(. .od/in R. &alde# f om the p actice of la/ fo g oss malp actice, immo al cha acte , dishonest( and deceitful conduct. %he complainant alleges that despite eceipt of legal fees in compliance /ith a Retaine Ag eement, the espondent efused to pe fo m an( of his obligations unde thei cont act fo legal se vices, igno ed the complainant0s e1uests fo a epo t of the status of the cases ent usted to his ca e, and e2ected demands fo etu n of the mone( paid to him. ,n *ecembe 34, 5667, the complainant, %o ben B. ,ve gaa d, a *utch national, th ough his business pa tne 'ohn B adle(, ente ed into a Retaine Ag eement3 /ith the espondent, Att(. .od/in R. &alde#. 8o the amount of PhP966,666.66, the complainant engaged the se vices of the espondent to ep esent him as his legal counsel in t/o cases filed b( him and t/o cases filed against him, all pending in Antipolo Cit(: including a dismissed complaint /hich /as appealed befo e the *epa tment of 'ustice. %he Ag eement stipulated that fees /ould cove acceptance and atto ne(0s fees, e;penses of litigation, othe legal incidental e;penses, and appea ance fees.5 %he cases filed b( the complainant included a complaint fo Estafa, . ave %h eats, Coe cion, <n2ust &e;ation and , al *efamation= pending befo e the ,ffice of the Cit( P osecuto of Antipolo and a civil case fo Mandamus, +n2unction /ith p a(e fo %empo a ( Rest aining , de and *amages> /hich is on t ial at B anch ?3, Regional % ial Cou t of Antipolo Cit(. ,n the othe hand, the cases filed against the complainant included a c iminal case fo ,the )ight %h eats at B anch 5 of the Municipal % ial Cou t of Antipolo, 7 and violation of "ection 7@aA of Republic Act No. 9545, the Anti! &iolence Against Bomen and %hei Child en Act of 566>4 befo e the 8amil( Cou t of Antipolo Cit(. A complaint fo +llegal Possession of 8i ea ms /as also filed against %o ben ,ve gaa d /hich /as dismissed b( the Cit( P osecuto of Antipolo Cit(. %his /as appealed to the *epa tment of 'ustice b( /a( of Petition fo Revie/. ?

3%Page

, de decla ing the espondent in default fo failu e to submit an Ans/e and failu e to attend the Mandato ( Confe ence.53 %he investigation p oceeded e; pa te. %he complainant submitted his position pape on ,ctobe 7, 566?,55 /ith a p a(e that the espondent be disba ed f om the p actice of la/, and to be o de ed to etu n the amount of PhP966,666.66. A Cla ificato ( Dea ing /as scheduled on *ecembe 33, 566?,5= and again, it /as onl( the complainant /ho /as in attendance: the espondent failed to attend the hea ing despite notice. %he case /as then submitted fo esolution based on the pleadings submitted b( the complainant and the hea ings conducted. 5> +nteg ated Ba of the Philippines @+BPA +nvestigating Commissione Antonio ". % ia, to /hom the instant disciplina ( case /as assigned fo investigation, epo t and ecommendation, found the espondent guilt( of violating Canon 37, Canon 34, Rule 34.63, Canon 3?, Canon 3C, and Rule 3C.6> of the Code of P ofessional Responsibilit(. +n his Repo t dated 'anua ( 59, 566C, he ecommended that espondent be suspended f om the p actice of la/ fo a pe iod of th ee @=A (ea s. %he +BP Boa d of .ove no s, th ough Resolution No. E&+++!566C!354, dated Ma ch 4, 566C, app oved the ecommendation of Commissione % ia, and fu the o de ed the complainant to etu n the PhP966,666.66 to the complainant /ithin 46 da(s f om eceipt of the notice. Be ag ee. Be find the espondent Att(. .od/in R. &alde# to have committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of P ofessional Responsibilit(. %he app op iate penalt( to be imposed on an e ant atto ne( involves the e;e cise of sound 2udicial disc etion based on the facts of the case. "ection 5?, Rule 3=C of the Rules of Cou t p ovides, vi#F "ec. 5?. *isba ment o suspension of atto ne(s b( "up eme Cou t, g ounds the efo . ! A membe of the ba ma( be disba ed o suspended f om his office as atto ne( b( the "up eme Cou t fo an( deceit, malp actice, o othe g oss misconduct in such office, g ossl( immo al conduct, o b( eason of his conviction of a c ime involving mo al tu pitude o fo an( violation of the oath /hich he is e1ui ed to ta-e befo e admission to p actice, o fo a /illful disobedience of an( la/ful o de of a supe io cou t, o fo co uptl( o /illfull( appea ing as an atto ne( fo a pa t( to a case /ithout autho it( to do so. %he p actice of soliciting cases fo the pu pose of gain, eithe pe sonall( o th ough paid agents o b o-e s, constitutes malp actice. <nde "ection 5?, Rule 3=C of the Revised Rules of Cou t, a membe of the Ba ma( be disba ed o suspended on an( of the follo/ing g oundsF @3A deceit: @5A malp actice o othe g oss misconduct in office: @=A g ossl( immo al conduct: @>A conviction of a c ime involving mo al tu pitude: @7A violation of the la/(e 0s oath: @4A /illful disobedience of an( la/ful o de of a supe io cou t: and @?A /illful appea ance as an atto ne( fo a pa t( /ithout autho it(. A la/(e ma( be disba ed o suspended fo misconduct, /hethe in his p ofessional o p ivate capacit(, /hich sho/s him to be /anting in mo al cha acte , honest(, p obit( and good demeano , o un/o th( to continue as an office of the cou t.

%he espondent has indubitabl( fallen belo/ the e;acting standa ds demanded of membe s of the ba . De did not me el( neglect his client0s cause, he abandoned his client and left him /ithout an( ecou se but to hi e anothe la/(e . De not onl( failed to p ope l( handle the cases /hich /e e ent usted to his ca e, he efused to do a single thing in connection /ith these cases. De did not file an( pleading to defend his client: he did not even ente his appea ance in these cases. Mo eove , he dis ega ded the complainant0s lette s and elect onic mails and e2ected the complainant0s phone calls. All the complainant /as as-ing fo /as a epo t of the status of the cases but the espondent could not be eached no matte /hat the complainant did to get in touch /ith him. Afte eceipt of the full amount of fees unde the Retaine Ag eement, he simpl( disappea ed, leaving the client defenseless and plainl( p e2udiced in the cases against him. Ba ants of a est /e e even issued against the complainant due to the espondent0s g oss and ine;cusable negligence in failing to asce tain the status of the case and to info m his client of the a aignment. +t /as not a me e failu e on the espondent0s pa t to info m the complainant of matte s conce ning the cases, it /as an unmista-able evasion of dut(. %o hide f om the complainant, avoid his calls, igno e his lette s, and leave him helpless is unfo givable: and to commit all these acts and omissions afte eceiving the full amount of legal fees and afte assu ing the client of his commitment and esponsibilit( violates the Code of P ofessional Responsibilit(. Canon 3, Rule 3.63 of the Code of P ofessional Responsibilit( states that Ga la/(e shall not engage in unla/ful, dishonest, immo al o deceitful conduct.G *eceitful conduct involves mo al tu pitude and includes an(thing done cont a ( to 2ustice, modest( o good mo als.57 +t is an act of baseness, vileness o dep avit( in the p ivate and social duties /hich a man o/es to his fello/men o to societ( in gene al, cont a ( to 2ustice, honest(, modest(, o good mo als.54 Rep esenting to the complainant that he /ould ta-e ca e of the cases filed against him,5? assu ing the complainant that his p ope t( involved in a civil case /ould be safegua ded,5C and then collecting the full amount of legal fees of PhP966,666.66, onl( to dese t the complainant afte eceipt of the fees, /e e manifestl( deceitful and dishonest. %he elationship of an atto ne( to his client is highl( fiducia (. Canon 37 of the Code of P ofessional Responsibilit( p ovides that Ga la/(e shall obse ve cando , fai ness and lo(alt( in all his dealings and t ansactions /ith his client.G Necessit( and public inte est en2oin la/(e s to be honest and t uthful /hen dealing /ith his client. A la/(e o/es fidelit( to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the t ust and confidence eposed in him. 59 Do/eve , instead of devoting himself to the client0s cause, the espondent avoided the complainant, fo got about the cases he /as handling fo him and ostensibl( abandoned him. %he client eposed his t ust in his la/(e /ith full faith that the la/(e /ould not bet a( him o abscond f om his esponsibilities. B( assu ing the complainant that he /ould ta-e ca e of the cases included in the Retaine Ag eement, and even accepting fees, the espondent def auded the complainant /hen he did not do a single thing he /as e;pected to do.

5%Page

A la/(e shall se ve his client /ith competence and diligence.=6 A la/(e shall not neglect a legal matte ent usted to him, and his negligence in connection the e/ith shall ende him liable.=3 Respondent should indeed be held liable, fo he /as not 2ust incompetent, he /as p acticall( useless: he /as not 2ust negligent, he /as indolent: and athe than being of help to the complainant, he p e2udiced the client. Respondent0s inaction /ith espect to the matte s ent usted to his ca e is obvious: and his failu e to file an ans/e to the complaint fo disba ment against him and to attend the hea ings in connection the e/ith, /ithout an( e;planation o e1uest fo esetting, despite p ope notice f om the +BP, is clea evidence of negligence on his pa t. %he Code of P ofessional Responsibilit( fu the p ovides that a la/(e is e1ui ed to -eep the client info med of the status of his case and to espond /ithin a easonable time to the client0s e1uest fo info mation.=5 %he espondent did the opposite. *espite the complainant0s effo ts to consult him and not/ithstanding nume ous attempts to contact him, simpl( to as- fo an update of the status of the cases, the espondent /as able to avoid the complainant and neve bothe ed to epl(. Afte months of /aiting fo a epl( f om the espondent, and discove ing that the espondent had been emiss in his duties, the complainant demanded the etu n of the documents he had tu ned ove to the espondent. De also demanded the etu n of the mone( he had paid fo the legal se vices that /e e not ende ed and e;penses of litigation /hich /e e not incu ed. Do/eve , the espondent e2ected the complainant0s demands. Rule 34.63, Canon 34 of the Code of P ofessional Responsibilit(, p ovides that Ga la/(e shall account fo all mone( and p ope t( collected o eceived fo and f om the client.G %he complainant paid H34,C7>.66 to the espondent via teleg aphic ban- t ansfe . %his /as conside ed as complete pa(ment fo the PhP966,666.66 that /as stipulated as the conside ation fo the legal se vices to be ende ed. Do/eve , since the espondent did not ca ( out an( of the se vices he /as engaged to pe fo m, no did he appea in cou t o ma-e an( pa(ment in connection /ith litigation, o give an( e;planation as to ho/ such a la ge sum of mone( /as spent and allocated, he must immediatel( etu n the mone( he eceived f om the client upon demand. Do/eve , he efused to etu n the mone( he eceived f om the complainant despite / itten demands, and /as not even able to give a single epo t ega ding the status of the cases. Acceptance of mone( f om a client establishes an atto ne(! client elationship and gives ise to the dut( of fidelit( to the client0s cause. Mone( ent usted to a la/(e fo a specific pu pose ! such as fo filing fees ! but not used fo failu e to file the case, must immediatel( be etu ned to the client on demand.== +n "encio v. Calvado es,=> the espondent la/(e "encio /as engaged to file a case, /hich he failed to do. Dis client demanded that he etu n the mone( /hich /as paid to him but he efused. "encio simila l( failed to ans/e the complaint and dis ega ded the o de s and notices of the +BP on man( occasions.=7 %he espondent la/(e /as o de ed to etu n the mone( that he eceived f om the complainant

/ith inte est at 35I pe annum f om the date of the p omulgation of the esolution until the etu n of the amount.=4 %he p actice of la/ is not a ight, but a p ivilege. +t is g anted onl( to those of good mo al cha acte . =? %he Ba must maintain a high standa d of honest( and fai dealing. =C )a/(e s must conduct themselves be(ond ep oach at all times, /hethe the( a e dealing /ith thei clients o the public at la ge,=9 and a violation of the high mo al standa ds of the legal p ofession 2ustifies the imposition of the app op iate penalt(, including suspension and disba ment. >6 %he espondent demonst ated not onl( appalling indiffe ence and lac- of esponsibilit( to the cou ts and his client but also a /anton dis ega d fo his duties as a la/(e . +t is deplo able that membe s of the ba , such as the espondent, bet a( not onl( the t ust of thei client, but also public t ust. 8o the p actice of la/ is a p ofession, a fo m of public t ust, the pe fo mance of /hich is ent usted to those /ho a e 1ualified and /ho possess good mo al cha acte .>3 %hose /ho a e unable o un/illing to compl( /ith the esponsibilities and meet the standa ds of the p ofession a e un/o th( of the p ivilege to p actice la/. Be must p otect the administ ation of 2ustice b( e1ui ing those /ho e;e cise this function to be competent, hono able and eliable in o de that the cou ts and clients ma( ightl( epose confidence in them. +n this case, /e find that suspension fo th ee (ea s ecommended b( the +BP is not sufficient punishment fo the unacceptable acts and omissions of espondent. %he acts of the espondent constitute malp actice and g oss misconduct in his office as atto ne(. Dis incompetence and appalling indiffe ence to his dut( to his client, the cou ts and societ( ende him unfit to continue discha ging the t ust eposed in him as a membe of the ba . Be could not find an( mitigating ci cumstances to ecommend a lighte penalt(. 8o violating elementa ( p inciples of p ofessional ethics and failing to obse ve the fundamental duties of honest( and good faith, the espondent has p oven himself un/o th( of membe ship in this noble p ofession. +N &+EB BDERE,8, espondent Att(. .od/in R. &alde# is he eb( *+"BARRE* and his name is o de ed "%R+CJEN f om the Roll of Atto ne(s. De is ,R*ERE* to immediatel( etu n to %o ben B. ,ve gaa d the amount of H34,C7>.66 o its e1uivalent in Philippine Cu enc( at the time of actual pa(ment, /ith legal inte est of si; pe cent @4IA pe annum f om Novembe 5?, 5664, the date of e;t a!2udicial demand. A t/elve pe cent @35IA inte est pe annum, in lieu of si; pe cent @4IA, shall be imposed on such amount f om the date of p omulgation of this decision until the pa(ment the eof. De is fu the ,R*ERE* to immediatel( etu n all pape s and documents eceived f om the complainant. Copies of this *ecision shall be se ved on the +nteg ated Ba of the Philippines, the ,ffice of the Ba Confidant and all cou ts. ", ,R*ERE*. RE NATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

=%Page

BE C,NC<RF

36

+d, p. >4. +d., p. 5. +d., p. 36 and 33. +d., p. ?5. +d., p. ?7. +d., p. 5=!5>. +d., p. 35 and >6.

33

#EONARDO A. &U"SUMB"NG Associate 'ustice

ANTON"O T. CARP"O Associate 'ustice

35

3=

CONSUE#O NARES' SANT"AGO Associate 'ustice

@on official leaveA RENATO C. CORONA Associate 'ustice

3>

37

MA. A#"C"A AUSTR"A'MART"NE$ Associate 'ustice

ADO#(O S. A$CUNA Associate 'ustice

34

%he administ ative complaint /as doc-eted as CB* Case No. 64!3C9>.
3?

CONC)"TA CARP"O MORA#ES Associate 'ustice

M"N"TA V. C)"CO' NA$AR"O Associate 'ustice

3C

Rollo, p. 3=. +d., p. 39. +d. +d., p. 53. +d., p. 55. +d., p. >3. +d., p. >=.

39

DANTE O. T"NGA Associate 'ustice

ANTON"O EDUARDO B. NAC)URA Associate 'ustice

56

53

PRESB"TERO *. VE#ASCO, *R. Associate 'ustice

TERES"TA *. #EONARDO'DE CASTRO Associate 'ustice

55

5=

5>

RUBEN T. RE ES Associate 'ustice

ARTURO D. BR"ON Associate 'ustice

+n e Basa, >3 Phil. 5?7, 5?4 @3956A, citing Bouvie 0s )a/ *ictiona (.
57

(oot+ote, $ ,n official leave.


3

+n e .utie e#, AC No. )!=4=, 'ul( =3, 3945, 7 "CRA 443.


54 5?

Rollo at p. >. +d., at p. 54.

Rollo, p. =. +d. +d., p. 7. +d., p. 4. +d., p. ?. +d., p. C. +d., p.9 +d., pp. >, >7. +d., p. 7.

5C

C,*E ,8 PR,8E""+,NA) RE"P,N"+B+)+%Y, Canon 3?.


59

>

C,*E ,8 PR,8E""+,NA) RE"P,N"+B+)+%Y, Canon 3C.


=6

C,*E ,8 PR,8E""+,NA) RE"P,N"+B+)+%Y, Canon 3C, Rule 3C.6=.


=3

C,*E ,8 PR,8E""+,NA) RE"P,N"+B+)+%Y, Canon 3C, Rule 3C.6>.


=5

Ba nachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 7957, Ma ch 33, 566=, =99 "CRA 3.


== =>

A.C. No. 7C>3, 'anua ( 56, 566=, =97 "CRA =9=.

>%Page

=7

+d.

"ee also Emiliano Cou t %o/nhouses Domeo/ne s Association v. Att(. Michael *ioneda, A.C. No. 7345, Ma ch 56, 566=, =99 "CRA 594.
=4

People v. "antodides, ..R. No. 3693>9, *ecembe 53, 3999, =53 "CRA =36.
=?

Maligsa v. Cabanting, A.C. No. >7=9, Ma( 3>, 399?, 5?5 "CRA >6C, >3=.
=C

.atchalian P omotions %alents Pool, +nc. v. Naldo#a, A.C. No. >63?, "eptembe 59, 3999, =37 "CRA >64.
=9

E e v. Rubi, A.C. No. 73?4, *ecembe 3>, 3999, =56 "CRA 43?.
>6

*i ecto of Religious Affai s v. Ba(ot, ?> Phil >?? @39>>A


>3

7%Page

You might also like