Jocelyn Ignacio vs. Atty. Daniel T.

Alviar

A.C. No. 11482

July 17, 2017

FACTS: March 2014, respondent lawyer Atty. Alviar was handling the case of herein
complainant’s son whom was detained and apprehended by the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency in Quezon City. The respondent made mention before the complainant that an
acceptance fee amounting to a P100, 000.00. Without any objections, complainant paid the said
acceptance fee in to three divisions of payment. First two initial payments were made with the
sum amount of P20, 000.00 and P30, 000.00. Third payment with the sum amount of P50,
000.00 was made and delivered by the demand of herein respondent after which he visited the
Hall of Justice and subsequently filed his notice of appearance as legal counsel for complainant’s
son.

The first arraignment of the complainant’s son was set on April 29, 2014 and complainant gave
prior notice to Atty. Alviar before the said stipulated date. As a response by Atty. Alviar to the
said notice of schedule, respondent refused to attend for the reason of a previous scheduled
hearing set on the same day. A letter was sent to the respondent by herein complainant dated
April 26, 2014 for a request of intercession by another lawyer since respondent lawyer is not
available on the arraignment of complainant’s son. As a result, during the day of the said
arraignment, respondent lawyer Atty. Alviar did not appear before the court to represent
complainant’s son nor any alternative lawyer was sent in lieu of his absence. Complainant, with
the forgoing circumstances asked a withdrawal as counsel to herein respondent and also
requested to retain some of the acceptance fee paid equivalent to the legal service rendered. But
respondent denied such allegations.

An administrative complaint was filed against herein respondent Atty. Alviar before the
Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Respondent’s Argument: He did not receive any formal letter requesting for any intercession
by another lawyer sent by the complainant and the failure to respond to the mandatory
conferences was resulted to an excessive threats to his life by a former client. He reiterated that
there was no negligence on his part to render any legal service to the complainant’s son.

Commission on Bar Discipline: As recommended by the Commission on Bar Discipline,

respondent lawyer is ruled to be suspended if approved; six (6) months from the practice of law
and to return the said P100, 000.00 to the complainant in violation of Canon 18.03 – Duty not to
neglect legal matters.
Resolution of Board of Governors: as per Commission on Bar Discipline recommendation was
resolved to adopt with modifications to reduce from 6 months suspension to reprimand with stern
warning.

ISSUE: Whether or Not respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of complainant's
son.

RULING: Yes, the Supreme Court held respondent in violation of Canon 18.03 and hereby
sustained the penalty proposed by the Board of Governors. It is said to be undisputed that
negligence on the part of the respondent with all of his contentions, that he forgot the date of
arraignment is a dismal excuse to make. With that the SC finds the respondent casual and
lackadaisical regarding to treatment of the respondent to the complainant and the legal matter
entrusted to him. The P100,000.00 acceptance fee according to the Supreme Court cannot be
brought back to the complainant as a whole, herein respondent is entitled of quantum merit for
the legal service rendered before the arraignment has transpired. An amount of P3, 000.00 was
enough for the respondent as determined by the Supreme Court and the remaining P97, 000.00
should be returned as mandated by the court. Because according to Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be
guided by the following factors in determining his fees: (a) The time spent and the extent of the
services rendered or required.

FALLO: WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Daniel T. Alviar LIABLE for violation of Canon 18
and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby REPRIMANDED
with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more
severely. Atty. Daniel T. Alviar is ordered to RESTITUTE to complainant the amount of
PhP97,000 out of the Phpl00,000 acceptance fee.”