Title
Caparas vs. Racelis
Case
A.C. No. 13376
Decision Date
Jan 11, 2023
Lawyer suspended for 6 months for failing to file ejectment case, neglecting client communication, and violating professional ethics; ordered to refund fees with interest.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 13376)

Facts:

Engagement and Payment

  • On December 5, 2017, Crisente L. Caparas (complainant) engaged Atty. Alwin P. Racelis (respondent) to file an ejectment case against "the Pacias" concerning complainant's land in Calamigan, Tiaong, Quezon Province.
  • Complainant paid respondent a total of P35,000.00, consisting of P20,000.00 in cash and P15,000.00 via money remittance after returning to Canada.

Communication and Follow-ups

  • On December 20, 2017, complainant informed respondent via email about the remittance of P15,000.00. Respondent acknowledged receipt and promised to file the ejectment case once the Barangay Certification was available.
  • Complainant authorized his sister-in-law, Guia Lindo, to represent him in the matter.
  • On February 27, 2018, complainant emailed respondent for an update but received no response.
  • Complainant attempted to contact respondent via Facebook Messenger on March 15, 2018, and June 27, 2018, but received no reply.
  • On December 24, 2018, complainant sent another email asking for updates, but respondent did not reply.
  • In March 2019, complainant again messaged respondent via Messenger but received no response.

Respondent’s Defense

  • Respondent claimed he only met complainant once and coordinated with complainant’s representatives, Cecilia L. Pangan and Guia Lindo.
  • Respondent alleged that Cecilia asked for P2,000.00 instead of providing necessary documents and later stopped communicating.
  • Guia provided some documents but also stopped visiting respondent’s office.
  • Respondent claimed he sent a demand letter to the Pacias in May 2018 but did not inform complainant.

Complaint and IBP Proceedings

  • Complainant filed a verified complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
  • The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a one-month suspension, a refund of P35,000.00 with interest, and an admonition.
  • The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation to a three-month suspension and a refund without admonition.

Issue:

  • Did respondent violate the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to diligently handle complainant’s ejectment case and communicate updates?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.