TRINIDAD H.

CAMARA,
Complainant,

A.C. No. 6121

Present:

- versus -

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.
Promulgated:

ATTY. OSCAR AMANDY REYES,

Respondent.

July 31, 2009

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:

Before us is a Letter-Complaint[1] filed by complainant Trinidad H. Camara against respondent Atty.

Oscar Amandy Reyes.
Sometime in 2003, complainant hired the services of respondent to handle her case. As partial acceptance
fee, respondent received from complainant P50,000.00 evidenced by a receipt[2] placed on his calling
card. Respondent, however, took no steps to protect complainants interest. As no service was rendered by
respondent, complainant asked that he return the amount given him so that she could use it in repairing her
house. Respondent offered that he would take charge of repairing the house. Yet, he again failed to fulfill his
promise, which prompted the complainant to reiterate her demand for the return of the money. [3] As respondent
failed to give back the amount demanded, complainant initiated the instant case.
In his Answer, respondent prayed that the case be closed and terminated, simply because the matter has
already been resolved by all the parties concerned. He added that complainant went to his office and explained
that she signed the letter-complaint not knowing that it was against respondent, as she was made to believe that
it was a complaint against her neighbor.[4]
Complainant and respondent failed to attend the mandatory conference; and to submit their respective
position papers.
On February 19, 2007, we referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.[5]
In his Report and Recommendation, IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag made the following
findings:

There is proof that respondent receipted the amount of Php50,000.00 in his own
handwriting. Even his calling card was given to the complainants.
Canon 16, Rule 16.01 provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Canon 18, Rule 18.04 provides that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status
of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to clients request for information.
Using the above yardsticks, clearly the respondent is liable and failed to live [up] to [the]
above mentioned standards.
While it is true that complainant Trinidad Camara allegedly executed an affidavit, the
same will not save the respondent.
As a general rule, disbarment proceeding shall not be interrupted or terminated by reason
of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the
complainant to prosecute unless the Court motu proprio determines that there is no compelling
reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent.
We reiterate that the respondent did not traverse the charges against him. He simply
wanted this case to be closed and terminated allegedly because he and Mrs. Camara had already
resolved their problem and the latters son, who also signed the letter-complaint as attorney-infact has no authority to do so.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it [is] most respectfully recommended that the
respondent be suspended for six (6) months from the active practice of law.[6]
In its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-522, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of the investigating Commissioner, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made
part of this Resolution a[s] Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for respondents violation of Canon
16, Rule 16.01, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty.
Oscar Amandy Reyes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
We agree with the foregoing recommendation.
The Court notes that despite the opportunity accorded to respondent to refute the charges against him, he
failed to do so or even offer a valid explanation. [7] It is incumbent upon respondent to meet the issue and
overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and
integrity which at all times is expected of him. These, respondent miserably failed to do.[8]
The record is bereft of any evidence to show that respondent has presented any countervailing evidence
to dispute the charges against him. In his answer, he did not even deny complainants allegations. He only

prayed that the case be closed and terminated, simply because the problem with complainant had already been
resolved.
The alleged compromise between complainant and respondent is not enough to exonerate the latter from
the present disciplinary case. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the interest or lack
of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the
charge of negligence has been duly proved.[9]
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They
are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice
from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court
for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest
in the outcome of the case.[10] This is also the reason why this Court may investigate charges against lawyers
regardless of complainants standing.[11]
When respondent accepted the amount of P50,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he
agreed to take up the latters case, and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. From
then on, it was expected that he would serve his client, herein complainant, with competence, and attend to her
cause with fidelity, care and devotion.[12]
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainants case and
subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
[13]
Specifically, Rule 18.03 states:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to the latters genuine interest, and
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and
ability to preserve his clients cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client, likewise, serves the ends
of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the
client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.[14]
The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of
trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed, the
faith of the people, not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole, is eroded. To
this end, all members of the bar are strictly required at all times to maintain the highest degree of public
confidence in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession.[15]
The factual antecedents in Reyes v. Vitan[16] and Sencio v. Atty. Calvadores[17] bear a striking similarity to
the present case. In Reyes, complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer for the purpose of filing the
appropriate complaint or charges against the formers sister-in-law and the latters niece. After receiving the
amount ofP17,000.00, respondent did not take any action on complainants case. In Sencio, complainant
therein, likewise, engaged the services of Atty. Calvadores to prosecute the civil aspect of the case in relation to
the death of her son in a vehicular accident. The total amount of P12,000.00 was duly acknowledged and
received by respondent as attorneys fees. Despite repeated assurances by respondent, complainant discovered
that the former had not filed any case on her behalf.
In both cases, we suspended the respondent lawyers for a period of six (6) months. Thus, we impose the
same penalty on respondent herein, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.

WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-522 of the IBP Board of Governors

is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS from the practice of law.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents
personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines, and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

[A.C. No. 6297. July 13, 2004]

DOLORES D. PARIAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. OSCAR P. PAGUINTO, respondent.

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
A lawyer has the duty to give adequate attention and time to every case he accepts. A lawyer
impliedly warrants that he possesses the necessary diligence, learning and skill to handle each case.
He should exert his best judgment and exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the
pursuit or defense of his clients cause.
The Facts
Sometime in October 2001, complainant Dolores Dryden Parias (Parias) engaged the
services of respondent Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto (Paguinto) to annul her marriage to Danilo Soriano.
They agreed that for the legal services, Parias would pay Paguinto an acceptance fee of P25,000,
the filing fee of P2,500 and other incidental expenses.
On 2 December 2001, Parias paid Paguinto P10,000 in cash as partial payment of the
acceptance fee. An acknowledgment receipt evidenced this payment. [1] Parias gave Paguinto a
diskette containing a narration of what happened between her and her estranged husband Danilo
Soriano. Parias also furnished Paguinto with a copy of her marriage contract with Soriano. Before
the end of December 2001, Parias gave Paguinto P2,500 for the filing fee.
Sometime between January and April 2002, Parias inquired from Paguinto on the progress of
her annulment case. Paguinto informed her that the case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 64 (RTC-Manila, Branch 64), before Judge Ricaforte and that the hearing was
scheduled on 25 April 2002. Before the hearing, Parias requested for a meeting with Paguinto but
the secretary informed her that the hearing was cancelled. The secretary further informed Parias
that the judge reset the succeeding hearings originally scheduled on 29 May 2002 and 26 June 2002
because the judge was sick or out of town.
On the first week of July 2002, Parias went to the trial court to inquire about her case but the
court personnel in RTC-Manila, Branch 64 informed her that there was no such case filed in their
court. Parias asked Paguinto for the case number, date of filing, copy of the petition and the court
where the annulment case was pending. Paguinto told Parias that the records were at his office and
that he was in Malolos, Bulacan attending to a case. It turned out that there was no annulment case
filed in RTC-Manila, Branch 64. Paguinto promised to return the money that Parias paid as down
payment. However, Paguinto returned the P10,000 only after Parias filed with the Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) the present complaint for
disbarment.
In the Order dated 14 February 2003, [2] the CBD directed Paguinto to answer the complaint.
Paguinto asked for an extension of 15 days to file his Answer. The CBD granted the extension in the
Order dated 19 March 2003. [3] However, Paguinto failed to file his Answer within the extended period
and thus the CBD declared him in default in the Order dated 15 July 2003. [4] After the hearing,

Parias submitted her Position Paper praying that the CBD declare Paguinto guilty of violation of Rule
16.01 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On 10 September 2003, Parias filed an Affidavit of Withdrawal [5] of the complaint. Parias stated
that Paguinto personally explained exhaustively the reasons why he failed to comply with his
obligations and she realized that the complaint arose due to a misapprehension of facts,
misunderstanding and miscommunication. Parias manifested that she was withdrawing the
complaint, as she was no longer interested in pursuing the case.
On the same date, Paguinto filed a Manifestation and Motion [6] explaining that he failed to attend
the hearing on 30 July 2003 because he was in Tabuk, Kalinga attending a hearing in a criminal case
for frustrated homicide. He apologized to Parias for his actuations claiming himself solely to be
blamed. He further declared that he failed to timely prepare and file the petition for annulment
because he spends his time mostly in Gen. Mariano Alvarez, Cavite where he practices law catering
to those clients who have less in life.
Commissioners Report & Recommendation
The IBP designated Atty. Rebecca Villanueva-Maala (Commissioner) as Commissioner to
conduct a formal investigation of the case. The Commissioner found Paguinto negligent in performing
his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. The Commissioner declared that a lawyer has
the duty to give adequate attention, care and time to his cases, accepting only as many cases as he
can handle. Paguinto failed to comply with this duty. The Commissioner recommended the
suspension of Paguinto from the practice of law for six months.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the Commissioner.
Parias gave Paguinto P10,000 cash as partial payment of the acceptance fee. Parias also
gave Paguinto P2,500 for the filing fee. Paguinto led Parias to believe that he had filed the
annulment case. Paguinto informed Parias that the case was filed with the RTC-Manila, Branch 64,
before Judge Ricaforte. However, Parias later found out that Paguinto never filed the annulment
case in court.
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code) provides that a lawyer shall
account for all money or property collected for or from the client. Acceptance of money from a client
establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.
[7]
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to
file the case must immediately be returned to the client on demand. [8] Paguinto returned the money
only after Parias filed this administrative case for disbarment.
Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his client. When a lawyer
accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the requisite
academic learning, skill and ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his best

judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and
ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle a
case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to
his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle,
otherwise his clients interests will suffer.[9] It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to
handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal work.
The lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability in handling his cases. A
license to practice law is a guarantee by the courts to the public that the licensee possesses sufficient
skill, knowledge and diligence to manage their cases. [10] The legal profession demands from a lawyer
the vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family.
In Gamalinda vs. Alcantara,[11] we ruled:
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
He shall serve his client with competence and diligence, and his duty of entire devotion to his clients cause not
only requires, but entitles him to employ every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him
or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latters cause to succeed. An attorneys duty to
safeguard the clients interests commences from his retainer until his effective release from the case or the final
disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation. During that period, he is expected to take such
reasonable steps and such ordinary care as his clients interests may require.
And failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code. [12]
Rule 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service that he is not
qualified to render. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation. He has the duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed.
Rule 18.03 of the Code also provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence shall render him liable.
One last point. Parias executed an Affidavit of Withdrawal [13] of the complaint stating that she
was withdrawing the administrative complaint against Paguinto after realizing that said complaint
against the respondent arose due to misapprehension of facts, misunderstanding and
miscommunication. Paguinto, on the other hand, submitted a Manifestation and Motion apologizing
to Parias for his actuations and admitting that he was solely to be blamed. A compromise or
withdrawal of charges does not terminate an administrative complaint against a lawyer, [14] especially
in this case where the lawyer admitted his misconduct.
Pariass affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case does not exonerate Paguinto in any way.
We reiterate our ruling in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos[15] that
[A] proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken solely for the public welfare. x x x The attorney is

called upon to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who
called the attention of the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto GUILTY of violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we penalize Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto with SUSPENSION for
SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law effective upon receipt of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondents personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

CARLITO P. CARANDANG,
Complainant,

A.C. No. 7813

Present:

- versus -

ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA,

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,

CARPIO,
CORONA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.

Promulgated:

Respondent.
April 21, 2009
x-------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case

This is a complaint filed by Carlito P. Carandang (Carandang) against Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina (Atty.
Obmina). Atty. Obmina was counsel for Carandang in Civil Case No. B-5109 entitled Sps. Emilia A.
Carandang and Carlito Carandang v. Ernesto Alzona. Carandang brought suit for Atty. Obminas failure to
inform Carandang of the adverse decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 and for failure to appeal the decision.

The Facts

The facts of CBD Case No. 06-1869 in the Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) read as follows:
Complainants Sworn Statement is hereto reproduced as follows:
SWORN STATEMENT
Ako si CARLITO P. CARANDANG, nasa wastong gulang, may asawat
mga anak, at nakatira sa 5450 Alberto Apt., St. Francis Homes, Halang Bian,
Laguna.
Na ako ay may kasong isinampa kay ERNESTO T. ALSONA tungkol sa
aming bahay at lupa, at isinampa sa BIAN RTC BRANCH 25, CIVIL CASE
NO. B-5109.
Na ang naturang kaso ay natapos at nadisisyunan noong Enero 28, 2000 at
ako ay natalo sa naturang kaso.
Na ang aking naging abogado ay si ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA, tubong
Quezon at bilang kababayan ako ay nagtiwala sa kanyang kakayahan upang
maipagtanggol sa naturang kaso, ngunit taliwas sa aking pananalig sa kanya ang
nasabing kaso ay napabayaan hanggang sa magkaroon ng desisyon ang korte na
kunin ang aking lupat bahay, sa madalit sabi kami ay natalo ng hindi ko man
lang nalalaman at huli na ang lahat ng malaman ko dahil hindi na kami pwedeng
umapila.

Na nalaman ko lang na may desisyon na pala ang korte pagkatapos ng

anim na buwan. Ang aking anak na si ROSEMARIE ay nagpunta sa BIAN, sa
RTC ay binati at tinatanong kung saan kayo nakatira at ang sagot [ng] aking anak
BAKIT? At ang sagot naman [ng] taga RTC, HINDI MO BA ALAM NA ANG
INYONG KASO AY TAPOS NA. Nang marinig yon ay umuwi na siya at sinabi
agad sa akin. Tapos na daw yung kaso [ng] ating bahay at ako ay pumunta sa
opisina ni ATTY. OBMINA at aking tinanong BAKIT DI MO SINABI SA AKIN
NA TAPOS NA ANG KASO? At ang sagot niya sa akin AY WALA KANG
IBABAYAD SA ABOGADO DAHIL WALA KANG PERA PANGAPILA dahil sa sagot sa akin ay para akong nawalan [ng] pag-asa sa kaso.
Lumapit ako sa Malacaang at binigay yung sulat pero doon ay aking
nakausap yung isang abogado at akoy kanyang pinakinggan at aking inabot ang
papeles at aking pinakita at ang sabi ay hindi na pwede dahil anim na buwan na
[nang] lumipas ang kaso. Kaya aking sinabi sa ATTY. ng Malacaang na hindi
sinabi sa akin agad ni ATTY. OBMINA na may order na pala ang kaso.
Kaya ang ginawang paraan ay binigyan ako ng sulat para ibigay sa IBP, at
nang mabasa ang sulat ay sinabi sa akin na doon sa SAN PABLO ang hearing, at
tinanong ako kung nasaan ang ATTORNEYS WITHDRAWAL NYO? Ang sagot
ko ay WALA HO, kaya inutusan ako na kunin ang ATTORNEYS
WITHDRAWAL at agad akong nagpunta sa opisina ni ATTY. OBMINA at
tinanong ko sa sekretarya niya kung nasaan si ATTY. OBMINA ang sagot sa akin
ay nasa AMERICA NA! Kayat aking tinanong kung sinong pwede magbigay sa
akin ng attorneys withdrawal at ang sabi ay yung anak nya na si CARMELITSA
OBMINA. Bumalik ako noong araw ng Biyernes at aking nakuha, pero hindi na
ako nakabalik sa IBP dahil noong araw na iyon ay hindi ko na kayang maglakad,
kaya hindi na natuloy ang hearing sa SAN PABLO.
CARLITO P. CARANDANG
Affiant
CTC No. 21185732
Issued on March 7, 2006
At Bian, Laguna
On November 16, 2006, the Commission on Bar Discipline, through Rogelio A. Vinluan,
the then Director for Bar Discipline (now the incumbent Executive Vice President of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines), issued an Order directing respondent Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina
to submit his Answer, duly verified, in six (6) copies, and furnish the complainant with a copy
thereof, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order.
On December 12, 2006, this Commission was in receipt of a Manifestation dated
December 11, 2006 filed by a certain Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. Obmina-Muaa. Allegedly, she is
the daughter of respondent Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina. She further alleged that [her] father is
already a permanent resident of the United States of America since March 2001 and had already
retired from the practice of law.
That on February 20, 2007, undersigned Commissioner [Jose I. De La Rama, Jr.]
scheduled the Mandatory Conference/Hearing of the case on March 20, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

On March 19, 2007, Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. Obmina-Muaa filed a Manifestation and
Motion reiterating her earlier Manifestation that the respondent, Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina is
already a permanent resident of the United States for the last six (6) years and likewise, she
reiterated her request that summons be served on her father thru extraterritorial service. Atty.
Muaa likewise requested the cancellation of the mandatory conference and resetting of the same
on April 10, 2007.
On the scheduled Mandatory Conference on March 20, 2007, complainant Carlito P.
Carandang appeared. The undersigned Commissioner directed Atty. Carmelita Muaa to appear
before this Commission on May 18, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and to bring with her the alleged
withdrawal of appearance filed by her father and to bring proof that her father is now really a
permanent resident of the United States of America.
That on May 18, 2007, Atty. Muaa again filed a Manifestation and Motion informing
this Honorable Commission that she cannot possibly appear for the reason that she is the legal
counsel of a candidate in Muntinlupa City and that the canvassing of the election results is not
yet finished. She likewise submitted copies of her fathers Passport and US Permanent
Residence Card. That with respect [to] the Withdrawal of Appearance, Atty. Muaa alleged that
copies of the same were all given to complainant Carlito P. Carandang.
That an Order dated May 18, 2007 was issued by the undersigned Commissioner granting
the aforesaid Manifestation and Motion. Atty. Muaa was likewise directed to appear before this
Office on June 22, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.
On June 22, 2007, in the supposed Mandatory Conference, Atty. Carmencita Obmina
Muaa appeared. Likewise presented was Mr. Carlito Carandang who is the complainant
against Atty. Gilbert Obmina. In the interest of justice, Atty. Muaa was given a period of ten
(10) days within which to file a verified answer. The Mandatory Conference was set on August
3, 2007 at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon.
On June 29, 2007, Atty. Muaa filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Answer.
On July 3, 2007, this Commission is in receipt of the verified Answer filed by respondent
Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina.
On August 3, 2007, during the Mandatory Conference, complainant Carlito Carandang
appeared. Atty. Muaa appeared in behalf of [her] father. After making some admissions,
stipulations and some clarificatory matters, the parties were directed to submit their verified
position papers within ten (10) days. Thereafter, the case will be submitted on report and
recommendation.
On August 10, 2007, complainant, by himself, filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of
Time to File Position Paper. Likewise, respondent, through Atty. Muaa, filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Position Paper on August 13, 2007.
On September 3, 2007, the Commission on Bar Discipline received copy of the
Respondents Memorandum.
On September 12, 2007, this Commission received copy of complainants Position Paper.
[1]

The IBPs Report and Recommendation

In a Report[2] dated 2 October 2007, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline Jose I. De La Rama, Jr.
(Commissioner De La Rama) found that Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record for complainant at the time
the decision was rendered and up to the time of the issuance of the writ of execution. Atty. Obmina received the
Decision dated 28 January 2000 on 1 March 2000. Atty. Carmencita Obmina-Muaa manifested in Court that
her father has been living in the United States of America since 2001. There is nothing on record that will show
that Atty. Obmina notified complainant in any manner about the decision.

Although Commissioner De La Rama observed that complainant is partly to blame for his loss for
failure to maintain contact with Atty. Obmina and to inform himself of the progress of his case, Commissioner
De La Rama nonetheless underscored the duty of Atty. Obmina to notify his client as to what happened to his
case. Thus:

One cannot escape the fact that the complainant himself failed to communicate with his
counsel for quite sometime. There is nothing in the complainants Sworn Statement that would
show that he regularly visited the office of the respondent, Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina. Complainant
is partly to blame for his loss and it should not be attributed solely to the respondent.
The Supreme Court held that clients should maintain contact with their counsel from
time to time and inform themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard
of care which an ordinary prudent man bestows upon his business (Leonardo vs. S.T. Best, Inc.,
422 SCRA 347)

However, the respondent who has in his possession the complete files and address of the
complainant, should have exerted efforts to even notify Mr. Carandang as to what happened to
his case. Whether the decision is adverse [to] or in favor of his client, respondent is duty bound
to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics which provides that
a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Further under Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. Lastly, under Rule 18.04, a lawyer shall keep
the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to clients
request for information.
That as a result of the respondents failure to notify the complainant, the latter lost the
case leading to his eviction.
In the case of Mijares vs. Romana 425 SCRA 577, the Supreme Court held that as an
officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever information he
may have acquired which it is important that the client should have knowledge of. In another
case, the Supreme Court held that respondents failure to perfect an appeal within the
prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Cheng vs. Agravante, 426 SCRA 42).
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, with head bowed in sadness, it is respectfully
recommended that Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year.
Although the said respondent is reportedly in the United States of America and
accordingly retired from the practice of law, this Commission will not close its eyes on the
negligence that he has committed while in the active practice.
SO ORDERED.[3] (Emphasis in the original)

In a Resolution[4] dated 19 October 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report
and Recommendation of Commissioner De La Rama. The Office of the Bar Confidant received the notice of
the Resolution and the records of the case on 14 March 2008.
The Ruling of the Court

We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its recommendations. Atty. Obmina violated Canon 18, and
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Obmina Failed to Serve Complainant

with Competence and Diligence

Canon 18 states that [a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rules 18.03 and
18.04 provide that [a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable and [a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.

In his Memorandum, Atty. Obmina admitted that he was counsel for Carandang in Civil Case No. B5109. Atty. Obmina blamed Carandang for the adverse decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 because Carandang
did not tell him that there was a Compromise Agreement executed prior to Atty. Obminas filing of the
complaint in Civil Case No. B-5109. Carandang, on the other hand, stated that Atty. Obmina made him believe
that they would win the case. In fact, Carandang engaged the services of Atty. Obmina on a contingent
basis. Carandang shall pay Atty. Obmina 40% of the sale proceeds of the property subject matter of the
case. Atty. Obmina promised to notify Carandang as soon as the decision of the court was given.

Contrary to Atty. Obminas promise, there is no evidence on record that Atty. Obmina took the initiative
to notify Carandang of the trial courts adverse decision. Atty. Obmina again put Carandang at fault for
failure to advance the appeal fee. Atty. Obminas version of Carandangs confrontation with him was limited to
this narrative:

Sometime in the year 2000, complainant went to respondents law office. He was fuming
mad and was blaming respondent for having lost his case. He asked for the records of the case
because according to him, he will refer the case to a certain Atty. Edgardo
Salandanan. Respondent gave complainant the case file. Complainant did not return to pursue
the appeal or at least had given an appeal fee to be paid to Court in order to perfect the appeal.[5]

Atty. Obminas futile efforts of shifting the blame on Carandang only serve to emphasize his failure to notify
Carandang that the trial court already promulgated a decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 that was adverse to
Carandangs interests. Atty. Obmina cannot overlook the fact that Carandang learned about the promulgation of
the decision not through Atty. Obmina himself, but through a chance visit to the trial court. Instead of letting
Carandang know of the adverse decision himself, Atty. Obmina should have immediately contacted Carandang,
explained the decision to him, and advised them on further steps that could be taken. It is obvious
that Carandang lost his right to file an appeal because of Atty. Obminas inaction. Notwithstanding Atty.
Obminas subsequent withdrawal as Carandangs lawyer, Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record at the time
the trial court promulgated the decision in Civil Case No. B-5109.

In Tolentino v. Mangapit, we stated that:

As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform her client of whatever
information she may have acquired which it is important that the client should have knowledge
of. She should notify her client of any adverse decision to enable her client to decide whether to
seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case
will minimize misunderstanding and [loss] of trust and confidence in the attorney.[6]

The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to
inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the clients case. The lawyer
should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the clients interests.[7]

The Court finds well-taken the recommendation of the IBP to suspend Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina from the
practice of law for one year. In the cases of Credito v. Sabio[8] and Pineda v. Macapagal,[9] we imposed the
same penalty upon attorneys who failed to update their clients on the status of their cases. Considering Atty.
Obminas advanced age, such penalty serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the public and legal
profession.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors approving and
adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Accordingly, Atty. Gilbert S.
Obmina is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 18 and of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDS

Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina from the practice of law for one year,

and WARNS him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents
personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all
courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON,

Complaina
nt,

A.C. No. 8158

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
-

versus -

ABAD, and
PEREZ, JJ.

Promulgated:
ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD,
Responde
nt.
February 24, 2010
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

BRION, J.:

In a verified complaint[1] before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines (IBP Commission on Bar Discipline), Atty. Elmer C. Solidon (Atty.
Solidon) sought the disbarment of Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad (Atty. Macalalad) for violations

of Rule 16.01,[2] Rule 18.03,[3] and Rule 18.04[4] of the Code of Professional Responsibility
involving negligence in handling a case.

The Facts

Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban City. Although he is in public
service, the DENR Secretary has given him the authority to engage in the practice of law.

While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October 2005,

Atty. Macalalad

was introduced to Atty. Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz Cabo-Borata (Ms.

Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a parcel
of land located in Borongan, Eastern Samar and owned by Atty. Solidons relatives. For a
consideration of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the task
to be completed within a period of eight (8) months. Atty. Macalalad received Fifty

Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of Thirty

Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the certificate
of title to the property.

Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for registration over the property sought
to be titled up to the present time.

In the Complaint, Position Papers[5] and documentary evidence submitted, Atty.

Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty. Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the
case six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees. He did this through phone calls
and text messages to their known acquaintances and relatives, and, finally, through a
letter

sent

by

courier

to

Atty.

Macalalad. However,

he

did

not

receive

any

communication from Atty. Macalalad.

In the Answer,[6] Position Paper,[7] and affidavits of witnesses,

Atty. Macalalad

posited that the delay in the filing of the petition for the titling of the property was
caused by his clients failure to communicate with him. He also explained that he had no

intention of reneging on his obligation, as he had already prepared the draft of the
petition. He failed to file the petition simply because he still lacked the needed
documentary evidence that his clients should have furnished him. Lastly, Atty. Macalalad
denied that Atty. Solidon tried to communicate with him.

The Findings of the IBP

In

his

Report

and

Recommendation

dated June

25,

2008,

Investigating

Commissioner Randall C. Tabayoyong made the following finding of negligence against

Atty. Macalalad:

complainant submitted in his position paper the affidavit of Flordeliz

Cabo-Borata, the mutual acquaintance of both complainant and
respondent. In the said affidavit, Mrs. Cabo-Borata described how she
repeatedly followed-up the matter with respondent and how respondent
turned a deaf ear towards the same. There is nothing on record which
would prompt this Office to view the allegations therein with caution. In
fact, considering that the allegations corroborate the undisputed facts of
the instant case...

As respondent has failed to duly present any reasonable excuse

for the non-filing of the application despite the lapse of about a year from
the time his services were engaged, it is plain that his negligence in filing

the application remains uncontroverted. And such negligence is contrary

to the mandate prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him. In fact, Rule 18.03 even provides that his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Acting on this recommendation, the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on

Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 dated July 17, 2008, holding that:

RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously

ADOPTED and APPROVED, with
modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondents violation of Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months
and Ordered to Return the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000)
with 12% interest per annum to complainant

The case is now before this Court for our final action pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139B of the Rules of Court, considering that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline imposed
the penalty of suspension on Atty. Macalalad.

The Courts Ruling

We agree with the IBPs 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. [8] We
fully considered the evidence presented and we are fully satisfied that the complainants
evidence, as outlined above, fully satisfies the required quantum of proof in proving Atty.
Macalalads negligence.

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the
rule on negligence and states:

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 Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the
lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation.

Thus, in Villafuerte v. Cortez,[9] we held that a lawyer is negligent if he failed to

do anything to protect his clients interest after receiving his acceptance fee. In In Re:
Atty. Briones,[10] we ruled that the failure of the counsel to submit the required brief
within the reglementary period (to the prejudice of his client who languished in jail for
more than a year) is an offense that warrants disciplinary action. In Garcia v. Atty.
Manuel, we penalized a lawyer for failing to inform the client of the status of the case,
among other matters.[11]

Subsequently, in Reyes v. Vitan,[12] we reiterated that the act of receiving money

as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the complainants case and,
subsequently, in failing to render the services, is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the
Code

of Professional

Responsibility. We made

the

same

conclusion

in Canoy

v.

Ortiz[13] where we emphatically stated that the lawyers failure to file the position paper
was per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The circumstance that the client was also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer
from liability for his negligence in handling a case. In Canoy, we accordingly declared
that the lawyer cannot shift the blame to his client for failing to follow up on his case
because it was the lawyers duty to inform his client of the status of the case. [14] Our
rulings
[16]

inMacarilay

v.

Seria,[15] in Heirs

of Ballesteros

v.

Apiag,

and in Villaflores v. Limos[17] were of the same tenor. In Villaflores, we opined that

even if the client has been equally at fault for the lack of communication, the main
responsibility remains with the lawyer to inquire and know the best means to acquire the
required information. We held that as between the client and his lawyer, the latter has
more control in handling the case.

All these rulings drive home the fiduciary nature of a lawyers duty to his client
once an engagement for legal services is accepted. A lawyer so engaged to represent a
client bears the responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost diligence.
[18]

The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to

exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her
client.[19] Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the
management of the cases by giving these cases appropriate attention and due
preparation, is expected from a lawyer.[20]

The records in this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to act as he committed
when he failed to file the required petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients
since it was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. At any rate, we reject Atty.
Macalalads defense that it was his clients who failed to contact him. Although no
previous communication transpired between Atty. Macalalad and his clients, the records
nevertheless show that Atty. Solidon, who contracted Atty. Macalalads services in behalf
of his relatives, tried his best to reach him prior to the filing of the present disbarment
case. Atty. Solidon even enlisted the aid of Ms. Cabo-Borata to follow-up on the status of
the registration application with Atty. Macalalad.

As narrated by Ms. Cabo-Borata in her affidavit, [21] she succeeded several times in
getting in touch with Atty. Macalalad and on those occasions asked him about the
progress of the case. To use Ms. Cabo-Boratas own words, she received no clear-cut
answers from him; he just informed her that everything was on process. We give
credence to these narrations considering Atty. Macalalads failure to contradict them or
deny their veracity, in marked contrast with his vigorous denial of Atty. Solidons
allegations.

We consider, too, that other motivating factors specifically, the monetary

consideration and the fixed period of performance should have made it more
imperative for Atty. Macalalad to promptly take action and initiate communication with
his clients. He had been given initial payment and should have at least undertaken
initial delivery of his part of the engagement.

We further find that Atty. Macalalads conduct refutes his claim of willingness to
perform his obligations. If Atty. Macalalad truly wanted to file the petition, he could have
acquired the necessary information from Atty. Solidon to enable him to file the petition
even pending the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline investigation. As matters now stand,
he did not take any action to initiate communication. These omissions unequivocally
point to Atty. Macalalads lack of due care that now warrants disciplinary
action.

In addition to the above finding of negligence, we also find

Atty. Macalalad

guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a
lawyer to account for all the money received from the client. In this case, Atty. Macalalad
did not immediately account for and promptly return the money he received from Atty.
Solidon even after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time of the
engagement.[22]

The Penalty

Based on these considerations, we modify the IBP Commission on Bar Disciplines

recommended penalty by increasing the period of

Atty. Macalalads suspension from

the practice of law from three (3) months, to six (6) months. [23] In this regard, we follow
the Courts lead in Parias v. Paguinto[24] where we imposed on the respondent lawyer
suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.01 and
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

we

hereby AFFIRM

WITH

MODIFICATION Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 dated July 17, 2008 of the Board of
Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. We impose on Atty. Ramil E.
Macalalad the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION from the practice of law for
violations of Rule 16.03 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
effective upon finality of this Decision. Atty. Macalalad is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Macalalad is also ORDERED to RETURN to Atty. Elmer C. Solidon the amount
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with interest of twelve percent (12%) per
annum from the date of promulgation of this Decision until the full amount is returned.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and noted
in Atty. Macalalads record as a member of the Bar.

SO ORDERED.