A.C. No. 6591 - Macarilay vs. Serina

Complainant: Marissa L. Macarilay, who purchased a lot with Jenelyn Balaoro from Albaria Mohammad.
Respondent: Atty. Felix B. SeriAa, engaged to render legal services in connection with the registration and protection of the title to the said lot.

In 2000, Macarilay and Balaoro bought a lot but were unable to register or transfer the title due to Mohammad’s failure to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.
Complainant learned from Reina Ong that the lot was mortgaged to a third party and was advised to secure a copy of the mortgage contract.
Ong introduced Complainant to Vic Paule of the Register of Deeds, who recommended that she obtain legal representation.

On March 18, 2002, during a meeting at the Star Mall in Mandaluyong, Complainant, accompanied by Balaoro and Ong, met with the Respondent at his office.
Respondent advised that the solution to the problem involved two phases:

Phase One – Filing an adverse claim and performing necessary notarization to protect their interest.
Phase Two – Filing both a civil complaint to compel the surrender of the title and a criminal complaint for estafa.

A verbal agreement was made covering the acceptance fee and additional fees for future services.

On March 18, 2002, Complainant paid an acceptance fee of ₱20,000.00 by check to secure the Respondent’s services.
On April 5, 2002, Complainant and Balaoro paid ₱3,000.00 (notarization) and ₱5,000.00 (filing fee) at the Respondent’s office; the affidavit of adverse claim was prepared and executed.
On May 16, 2002, another check for ₱20,000.00 was issued by the Complainant as payment for filing fee for the cases to be filed against Mohammad.
Subsequent to these payments, the only legal service rendered appeared to be the notarization of the deed and the filing of the adverse claim.

Later in 2002, the Complainant inquired repeatedly about the status of the case(s) against Mohammad, but Respondent was unable to provide clear updates.
Respondent claimed the adverse claim had been filed and even mentioned that a civil complaint was pending in the sala of Judge Regala, although no such case was found upon verification.
Inquiries by the Complainant and even by her new counsel, Atty. Noel Sorreda, led to angry responses from the Respondent, indicating reluctance to address the matter.

On March 24, 2003, after Respondent’s dismissive attitude during a telephonic inquiry by Atty. Sorreda, the Complainant authorized the termination of his services.
Termination was communicated:

By a letter from Atty. Sorreda on March 26, 2003, confirming the termination and requesting the turnover of documents.
By a subsequent letter from the Complainant affirming the termination and demanding the return of documents.

Respondent, in a letter dated April 4, 2003, denied the termination and later, in his letter dated July 14, 2003, he contested the payments received by alleging additional fees were due, while asserting he had received only the ₱20,000.00 acceptance fee.

The Complainant filed a verified administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) on September 22, 2003, charging respondent with malpractice and/or gross misconduct.
The IBP-CBD, through mandatory conferences and hearings, compiled documentary evidence and recorded testimonies including that of Balaoro which confirmed that the only agreed amount was the acceptance fee.
The investigating commissioner, Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid Jr., found that:

Respondent was negligent in attending to his client’s case, failing to file the promised civil and criminal complaints.
His later excuses and shifting of blame to the Complainant were untimely and appeared as an afterthought.
The amount of ₱48,000.00 paid by the Complainant far exceeded the value of services actually rendered, with evidence suggesting that ₱8,000.00 was sufficient for the notarization and adverse claim filing, leaving an overcharge of ₱40,000.00.

Based on the foregoing, the IBP board of governors adopted the investigative recommendations and imposed disciplinary measures.

Whether the Respondent failed to render the legal services agreed upon, despite receiving an acceptance fee and additional payments.

Determining if the inaction related to filing the mandated civil and criminal complaints constituted a breach of duty.

Whether Respondent’s misrepresentations and contradictory communications (i.e., claiming that complaints were filed when they were not) breached the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the withholding of funds paid for anticipated legal services, in the absence of their actual rendering, entitles the Complainant to a refund.
Whether the actions of the Respondent amount to negligence and a violation of the ethical standard of diligence and candor required of a lawyer.