ROLLON v NARAVAL
devotion.
FACTS:
ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of
ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed
against her (Collection of Sum of Money. After going
through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be
ROLLON‘S lawyer and required her to pay P8,000 as
filing and partial service fee. As per instruction of ATTY
NARAVAL, ROLLON‘S SON returned to his office to
follow up however ATTY NARAVAL told the SON that
he was not able to act on the case because he was
busy.
After several follow ups and still no action, ROLLON
decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY
NARAVAL for failure of the latter to comply with their
mutual agreement.
ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the
documents because the same were in his house and
the P8,000 paid by
ROLLON because he has no money. ROLLON decided
to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City.
INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year
for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and
18.
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNOR‘S RESOLUTION: suspend for
2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18 and
restitution of P8,000
ISSUE:
W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE
REPRIMANDED
HELD: YES, FOR VIOLATION OF RULE
15.05 AND CANONS 16, 17 & 18
RATIO:
Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as
advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish
to become their client. They may decline employment
and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in
a position to carry it out effectively and competently.
But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are
required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility
to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty
of fidelity to a client‘s cause. And every case accepted
by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence.
Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may
cases as they can efficiently handle. Otherwise, their
clients would be prejudiced.
In the case at bar, records show that after receiving
P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal
service to ROLLON and despite ROLLON‘S repeated
demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of
the case that had been entrusted to him and kept the
money ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him
Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY
NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid opinion
on the merits and status of the case. Apparently, the
civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her
and had long become final executory. However, ATTY
NARAVAL withheld such vital information from
ROLLON and even demanded P8,000 as filing and
service fee giving her hope that her case would
be acted upon.
Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule
15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE, within
thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision,
complainant‘s eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus
interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum,
from October 18, 2000, until fully paid