Facts:

The case under consideration involves an administrative complaint filed by Jose Antonio F. Balingit (the complainant) against attorneys Renato M. Cervantes and Teodoro B. Delarmente (the respondents) on November 9, 2016. The events leading to the complaint occurred after a tragic incident on July 9, 2011, when complainant's two sons—Jose Antonio Balingit, Jr. and Carlo Balingit—were involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle driven by David A. Alizadeh. The accident resulted in serious injuries to Carlo and the death of Jose Antonio Jr. The complainant, along with Carlo, Kristopher Rocky Kabigting, Jr., and the heirs of the deceased son, engaged the services of respondents to file a civil suit for damages against David, as well as to file an administrative case with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) against him.

Atty. Cervantes sent a demand letter on August 8, 2011, for payment of P2,000,000 plus 25% in attorney’s fees to David. He later informed the PRC abo

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Complainant is a former Filipino citizen who became a naturalized British citizen.
• Complainant engaged the services of respondents, Atty. Renato M. Cervantes and Atty. Teodoro B. Delarmente, to handle both a civil suit for damages and an administrative case with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) against David A. Alizadeh.

The Incident and Resulting Legal Actions

• On July 9, 2011, a head-on collision occurred in Antipolo City involving:
• Complainant’s two sons, Jose Antonio Balingit, Jr. and Carlo, riding motorcycles.
• A car driven by David A. Alizadeh.
• Consequences of the collision:
• Carlo sustained serious physical injuries.
• Jose Antonio, Jr. was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
• Kristopher Rocky Kabigting, Jr., a passenger of Jose Antonio, Jr., also suffered physical injuries.
• An information for criminal negligence was filed against David before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Antipolo City on July 13, 2011.

Engagement of Respondents and Fee Agreement

• Complainant, together with Carlo, Kristopher, and the heirs of Jose Antonio, Jr., retained the respondents to:
• File a separate civil suit for damages against David.
• File an administrative case with the PRC concerning David’s license to practice medicine.
• On August 8, 2011, Atty. Cervantes sent a demand letter to David demanding P2,000,000.00 plus 25% as attorney’s fees.
• On August 22, 2011, a letter was sent to the PRC requesting that David’s license be deferred or suspended pending the resolution of his criminal case.

The Written Agreement and Payment Controversies

• An Agreement dated August 18, 2011 was prepared and signed by Atty. Cervantes, outlining the terms of the respondents’ engagement, including:
• Acceptance Fee of P30,000.00 (treating the clients as most favored).
• Appearance Fee of P4,000.00 for every court appearance by the lawyers.
• Success Fee of 20% of any amount collected from a successful resolution.
• Additional official and other fees to be borne by the client.
• The Agreement, addressed to Kristopher, Carlo, and the heirs of the deceased, was not signed by these parties.
• Complainant nevertheless paid P45,000.00 as a partial acceptance fee (evidenced by a handwritten receipt issued by Atty. Delarmente).
• Allegations arose that Atty. Cervantes also received an unreceipted P10,000.00 from Imelda Balingit, complainant’s daughter-in-law.

Failure to Institute the Agreed Civil Suit and Subsequent Developments

• Despite the receipt of fees and submission of necessary documents by the complainant, respondents did not file the separate civil suit for damages against David as agreed.
• Meanwhile, during mediation set by the trial court for the criminal proceedings:
• A Compromise Agreement was reached on October 13, 2011, whereby David agreed to pay P1,000,000.00 in exchange for an affidavit of desistance and the dismissal/withdrawal of civil cases for damages.
• The Compromise Agreement was to be approved by the Municipal Trial Court on November 9, 2011.
• At the November 9, 2011 hearing, Atty. Cervantes attended and demanded:
• 10% of the compromise amount as attorney’s fees.
• P5,000.00 as an appearance fee.
• Complainant refused to pay, asserting that the compromise was entered into before a mediator and thus not subject to such additional fee claims.

Escalation to Criminal Complaint and Disciplinary Proceedings

• On November 10, 2011, Atty. Cervantes sent a further demand letter seeking P100,000.00 as fee (10% of the compromise) and an appearance fee of P5,000.00.
• Upon refusal by the complainant, Atty. Cervantes filed:
• A criminal complaint for estafa against the complainant, his wife, and his sons.
• A complaint for deportation against the complainant and his family, on grounds of being “undesirable British aliens.”
• On December 19, 2011, the present disbarment case was filed by the complainant against the respondents before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
• Respondents were required to file their answers:
• Atty. Delarmente did not file an answer.
• Atty. Cervantes filed his answer on March 27, 2012.
• Respondents later failed to comply with the mandatory conference briefs and verified position papers as ordered by Investigating Commissioner Atty. Peter Irving C. Corvera.

Administrative Investigation and Disciplinary Sanctions Imposed

• In his Report and Recommendation dated January 2, 2014, Commissioner Corvera found respondents guilty of grave misconduct and multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
• Recommended penalty: Suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.
• On December 13, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but reduced the penalty to three (3) months.
• The Supreme Court later affirmed the Report and Recommendation, sustaining the six (6) months suspension and directing respondents to return the P45,000.00 received from the complainant, despite issues regarding the unexplained reduction by the Board.

Issue:

Whether respondents, as counsels, breached their ethical and professional responsibilities by:

• Failing to file the separate civil suit for damages after receiving the required fees and supporting documents.
• Demanding additional fees (appearance fee and success fee) not covered in their original engagement, particularly in connection with the compromise reached in the criminal proceedings.

• Whether respondents’ actions regarding the non-utilization and misappropriation of the fees received from complainant, including alleged receipt of an additional P10,000.00, warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

• Whether the disciplinary penalty imposed, including the suspension period and order to return the fees, is proper and supported by the evidence, notwithstanding the Board’s unexplained reduction of the recommended suspension.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)