Facts:

This case revolves around Calixto Ballos, who filed a complaint against Atty. Paquito G. Balasabas for unethical conduct and negligence in handling the appeal in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 1962-A) that originated in the City Court of Davao City. In this case, Hector M. Llamas was the plaintiff, suing multiple defendants, whom he accused of forcibly entering his property situated in New Society (Sto. Nino) Village, Matina Aplaya, Davao City. Although Ballos was not a defendant in this case, he had a vested interest in the outcome, as he identified with the defendants' plight. The case concluded in favor of Llamas at the lower court. After expressing dissatisfaction with their initial attorney, Atty. Octavio Fernandez, the defendants and Ballos decided to engage Atty. Balasabas.

Ballos, on behalf of the defendants, paid Atty. Balasabas a total of P1,563.50, which covered various expenses related to the appeal, including attorney's fees and supplemental costs. Atty.

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Complainant: Calixto Ballos, a forty-year-old computer in a surveyor’s office, who also acted on behalf of the defendants in an ejectment case.
• Respondent: Atty. Paquito G. Balasabas, admitted to the bar in 1962, hired to handle the appeal of the forcible entry case.
• Underlying Case:

- Civil Case No. 1962-A filed by Hector M. Llamas against sixteen alleged squatters on his lots in New Society (Sto. Niño) Village, Matina Aplaya, Davao City. - Ballos was not a defendant in the underlying case but hoped for a favorable decision for defendants by replacing their previous counsel.

Engagement and Payment Details

• Replacement of Counsel:

- The defendants, dissatisfied with their former lawyer Atty. Octavio Fernandez, along with Ballos, hired Atty. Balasabas. - Total amount paid: P1,563.50. - Itemized Payments:

Handling of the Appeal

• Procedural Matters:

- The appeal was perfected by Atty. Balasabas and a supersedeas bond was arranged via a surety company. - The appeal was docketed at the Court of First Instance of Davao in June 1973. - No significant action was taken until a telegram from Ballos prompted Judge Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. to set the case for hearing on January 18, 1974. - Atty. Balasabas made his sole appearance, stating the case was already appealed. - The judge explained that the hearing was expedited following communication from the Supreme Court regarding a telegram sent by Ballos. - During the proceeding, Balasabas expressed regret over not being consulted beforehand regarding the telegram and indicated that he would rely on the memorandum already submitted by his predecessor, Atty. Fernandez.

Subsequent Developments

• Decision and Further Appeal:

- On January 19, 1974, Judge Cusi affirmed the city court’s decision against the defendants. - The defendants rehired Atty. Fernandez to appeal the case to the Court of Appeals, where they again lost. - Seventeen days after the hearing (February 5, 1974), Ballos denounced Atty. Balasabas to the President of the Philippines, branding him as a lawyer unfit in the new society. - Allegations included dissatisfaction with the respondent’s limited court appearance, failure to file a memorandum or present an oral argument, and questionable accounting of the funds received.

Accounting and Handling of Funds

• Respondent’s Accounting:

- Atty. Balasabas accounted for the P1,563.50 received by breaking it down into P730 for fees, P404.30 as premium, and a balance of P429.20 for an appeal bond (P60) and other expenses such as copies of records and registration of the mortgage deed. - The actual disbursement for docketing and filing fees (estimated at P20 for docketing and P50 for appeal bond) suggests that roughly P359.20 was expended on registration and copies. - The accounting provided was deemed “hazy” and not sufficiently clear or exact.

Negotiations and Proposals

• Proposals for Complaint Withdrawal:

- Balasabas testified that Ballos acknowledged he filed the complaint due to suspicions of misappropriation by the lawyer. - Ballos proposed either a reimbursement of P500 or that the respondent pay the back premiums for two years on the surety bond to cancel the mortgage on his lot. - Atty. Balasabas rejected the proposals, maintaining that his performance – perfecting the appeal and submitting the required supersedeas bond – was sufficient given the circumstances.

Issue:

Adequacy of Legal Representation

• Whether Atty. Balasabas rendered adequate and effective legal representation to his clients, given his single court appearance and reliance on a memorandum submitted by previous counsel.
• Whether his performance fell short of the expected standards for zeal and advocacy in appellate proceedings.

Accountability in Handling Clients’ Funds

• Whether Balasabas provided a clear and exact accounting of the fees and expenses advanced on behalf of his clients.
• Whether the failure to furnish proper documentation and justification for expenditures constitutes negligence or unethical conduct.

Appropriate Disciplinary Measures

• Whether the identified shortcomings in legal representation and fund management warrant disciplinary action against the respondent.
• What level of disciplinary action (admonition, suspension, or disbarment) is appropriate considering the gravity of the deficiencies noted.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)