G.R. No. 181384 - Batugan vs. Balindong

Complainant Reynaldo A. Cabuello, representing his parents who were accused in Criminal Cases Nos. CC-2007-1635 and CC-2007-1636 (charged with qualified theft of coconuts before the RTC of Calbiga, Samar, Branch 33), engaged respondent Atty. Editha P. Talaboc to represent the accused.
The legal representation was characterized by an alleged lack of diligence as respondent repeatedly failed to appear in court hearings and neglected agreed obligations, prompting Reynaldo to file an administrative complaint on October 12, 2010, with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Complainant paid respondent a series of fees totaling P97,500.00 for various purposes including filing fee, acceptance fee, motion filing, transportation expenses, additional plane fare, penalties for unused tickets, and fees for a motion.
Detailed payments were as follows:

P20,000.00 – Filing fee, appearance fee, and transportation expenses (paid August 21, 2007).
P20,000.00 – Acceptance fee (paid October 19, 2007).
P10,000.00 – For the motion and affidavit of waiver (paid November 7, 2007).
P19,000.00 – Alleged additional plane fare (paid December 16, 2007).
P15,000.00 – For a criminal case to be filed against police officers (paid January 13, 2008 and July 16, 2008).
P8,500.00 – For fare expenses including taxi and food (paid February 4, 2008).
P2,500.00 – For a penalty on unused plane tickets (paid February 4, 2008).
P2,500.00 – For payment of a motion (paid April 18, 2008).

Complainant contended that respondent neglected to attend scheduled hearings, forcing him to incur additional travel expenses (approximately P150,000.00) over a period of 10 months as he repeatedly traveled between Manila and the province.
Respondent was also accused of failing to file a necessary complaint against the policemen involved in the arrest of the accused, breaching her professional obligation.
Even after receiving a demand letter (February 15, 2009) and a subsequent demand letter (September 13, 2010) requesting refund and accountability for her omission, respondent failed to respond or rectify the situation.

Initial procedural steps included an IBP order for respondent to file her answer within 15 days (October 13, 2010), which she failed to comply with.
A series of hearings were scheduled and reset due to non-appearance:

The ex-parte hearing set on January 21, 2011 was canceled and reset to March 4, 2011 due to the respondent’s absence and non-confirmation of receipt of notice.
On March 4, 2011, the respondent’s representative appeared and requested an additional period of seven days to file an answer, but the respondent still did not file any answer thereafter.
Subsequent hearings were reset for April 1, 2011, canceled, and finally reset to April 15, 2011, where once again respondent failed to appear.

On July 25, 2011, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez submitted a report finding respondent guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The report detailed respondent’s repeated filing of motions to reset hearing dates, her continued non-appearance in court, and the detrimental impact these actions had on the timely resolution of the criminal cases.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended a suspension of six months from the practice of law.

On May 17, 2012, respondent filed a Motion to Re-open and set a new conference, pleading that she was abroad in the U.S.A. for medical reasons (she was being tested for a bone marrow donation for her brother) when she allegedly learned of the complaint.
In her motion, respondent asserted that she had previously informed her client of possible health-related withdrawal and had filed several motions, including an Omnibus Motion in August 2007, which outlined her intended legal strategy and submitted appropriate pleadings.
Respondent also contended that the payments conceded by the complainant were in part for legitimate services rendered and that any monetary claim for refund should be based on a quantum meruit approach rather than being an outright repudiation of all fees received.

On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2013-234, sanctioning respondent with a six-month suspension and ordering her to return the fees along with legal interest within 30 days.
Respondent’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was filed on July 10, 2013, yet the complainant countered by reaffirming the alleged unauthorised payments and breach of the lawyer’s duty.
On March 21, 2014, Resolution No. XXI-2014-96 was passed, denying the motion for reconsideration and enhancing the suspension penalty from six months to two years while reiterating the refund demand.
Ultimately, on November 7, 2017, the Supreme Court, while affirming the findings regarding the violation of Canons 17 and 18, modified the penalty by reducing the suspension from two years to one year and ordered the refund to be limited to P50,000.00 with six percent legal interest per annum.

Whether respondent Atty. Editha P. Talaboc committed professional negligence by repeatedly failing to appear in court hearings and not fulfilling her legal obligations toward her client.
Whether the respondent’s conduct, including continuous filing of motions to reset hearings and her absence during critical stages of the criminal proceedings, violated Canons 17 (fidelity) and 18 (competence and diligence) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the complainant is entitled to a full refund of the total payments made (P97,500.00) or whether only a partial refund (P50,000.00) is warranted, especially in light of the absence of a formal retainer agreement and the quantum meruit principle.
Whether the imposition of a disciplinary sanction (suspension from the practice of law) is appropriate in this case and, if so, the proper duration of such suspension.
Whether the evidence provided, including respondent’s subsequent defenses and explanations, is sufficient to justify any mitigation of the penalty or to invalidate the IBP and Court’s findings.