Case Digest (A.C. No. 1517)
Facts:
In the case of Maria Luz Atienza vs. Vicente Evangelista, the complainant, Maria Luz Atienza, filed a complaint against Vicente Evangelista, a member of the Philippine Bar, for unprofessional conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The events leading to the complaint began when Atienza retained Evangelista to assist her in prosecuting individuals allegedly responsible for her husband's death. The agreement stipulated that she would pay him a total of P8,000.00, with an initial down payment of P3,000.00 and P100.00 for each court appearance. The case was filed with the Manila City Fiscal's Office and assigned to Assistant Fiscal Fernando Agdamag for preliminary investigation. During the proceedings, two of Atienza's witnesses failed to appear for cross-examination, leading the fiscal to recommend the dismissal of the case due to insufficient evidence. Following this recommendation, Atienza terminated Evangelista's services and took all related documents from him. Subse...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 1517)
Facts:
Retention of Respondent as Counsel
- Complainant Maria Luz Atienza retained respondent Vicente Evangelista, a member of the Philippine Bar, to assist her in prosecuting the individuals allegedly responsible for her husband's death.
- The agreed attorney's fees were P8,000.00, with P3,000.00 paid upfront and P100.00 per appearance.
Filing of the Complaint
- Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of the complainant with the Manila City Fiscal's Office.
- The case was assigned to Assistant Fiscal Fernando Agdamag for preliminary investigation.
Conduct of the Preliminary Investigation
- Respondent attended no less than 15 scheduled hearings and presented the complainant and four other witnesses.
- Two of the witnesses refused to submit to cross-examination, leading Fiscal Agdamag to recommend the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence.
- The recommendation was concurred in by another fiscal, Roberto D. Cabrera, and the then City Fiscal, Jose Gamboa.
Dismissal of the Case
- The case was dismissed due to the failure of the complainant's witnesses to submit to cross-examination.
- Respondent informed the complainant of the dismissal and offered to appeal or seek reconsideration, but the complainant terminated his services and took the case records, stating she had hired another lawyer.
Administrative Complaint
- Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent, alleging unprofessional conduct and negligence in handling her case.
- The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- The Solicitor General recommended the dismissal of the complaint, finding no sufficient evidence of negligence or violation of professional duties by the respondent.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Burden of Proof in Disbarment Cases
- In disbarment cases, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the respondent's guilt by clear preponderance of evidence.
- The respondent enjoys the legal presumption of innocence and the presumption that he performed his duties in accordance with his oath.
Negligence Not Established
- The respondent attended multiple hearings, prepared the complaint, and presented witnesses.
- The dismissal of the case was due to the complainant's witnesses' refusal to submit to cross-examination, not due to the respondent's negligence.
Success in Litigation Not a Measure of Professional Conduct
- A lawyer cannot be held accountable simply because a client's case was unsuccessful.
- The test of a lawyer's performance is whether he exercised due diligence and thorough preparation, not the outcome of the case.
Termination of Services
- The complainant terminated the respondent's services and took the case records, indicating that the respondent was no longer obligated to act on the case.
No Basis for Disciplinary Action
- Disbarment or suspension should only follow when there is clear and convincing evidence of professional misconduct.
- In this case, no such evidence was presented.