Case Digest (A.C. No. 9176)
Facts:
Agustin Aboy, Sr. v. Atty. Leo B. Diocos, A.C. No. 9176, December 05, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Peralta, C.J., writing for the Court. Complainant Agustin Aboy, Sr. filed an administrative complaint with the Court against Atty. Leo B. Diocos alleging estafa, abuse of power, and administrative connivance in connection with a mass claim by holders of Pepsi Cola "349" cap codes. Aboy asserted he was president of the association of more than five hundred cap holders and alleged that Atty. Diocos, retained to prosecute a case for specific performance and damages against Pepsi Cola Philippines, agreed to a 20% contingency and collected P150.00 from each cap holder.The association’s case was filed and tried before Judge Winston M. Villegas and, on November 7, 2007, the trial court dismissed the case. Complainant and a succeeding association president, Gloria Ruamar, attempted to obtain the dismissal order from Judge Villegas but were allegedly refused; they then requested a copy from Atty. Diocos who, they claim, demanded P90,000.00 to perfect an appeal and thereafter declined to withdraw as counsel. In 2009 they obtained a copy of the Decision showing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, but complainant later claimed a version existed showing dismissal for nonpayment of docket fees, which gave rise to the charge of collusion between Atty. Diocos and Judge Villegas.
The Court required respondent to file a Comment (Nov. 7, 2011). Atty. Diocos admitted representation but denied the P150.00 collection, denied Aboy’s authority as association president, and asserted he had given his clients a copy of the Decision and that, in any event, counsel is not required by law to furnish copies. He also asserted the case lacked cause of action and that unpaid fees explained his inaction.
The matter was referred for investigation; Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended censure (Report and Recommendation, Apr. 28, 2013). The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation with modification and recommended a three-month suspension (Resolution No. XX-2013-627, May 11, 2013). Atty. Diocos moved for reconsideration (Sept. 3, 2013); complainant sought turnover of P364,520,000.00. The IBP denied reconsideration and reaffirmed suspension for three...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Leo B. Diocos commit violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (specifically Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18) warranting disciplinary s...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)