Case Digest (A.C. No. 12072)
Facts:
Napoleon S. Quitazol v. Atty. Henry S. Capela, A.C. No. 12072, December 09, 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Napoleon S. Quitazol engaged Atty. Henry S. Capela to represent him in a breach of contract and damages action before the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City, Pangasinan. The retainer purportedly provided Atty. Capela’s office address in Makati and specified that Napoleon would deliver possession of his Toyota Corolla GLI and its registration documents as acceptance for services. Atty. Capela entered his appearance, moved for extension of time, and filed an answer in the RTC case.
Despite notices of several hearings (a preliminary conference on February 12, 2014, and later hearings set on March 26, May 7, and August 6, 2014), Atty. Capela failed to appear; Napoleon, left without his chosen counsel, agreed to a compromise that the RTC approved on August 19, 2014. Napoleon demanded return of the vehicle and P38,000, but Atty. Capela did not comply.
Napoleon filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) alleging violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for neglecting his client’s legal matter. The IBP‑CBD ordered Atty. Capela to file an answer and warned that failure to do so would render him in default; he did not answer. A mandatory conference set for March 26, 2015 proceeded with only Napoleon (then represented by new counsel) in attendance; the IBP declared Atty. Capela in default and waived from further participation. Napoleon died on April 30, 2015, and his brother, Frank S. Quitazol, substituted as complainant and later executed an affidavit of withdrawal of the administrative complaint.
Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor, in a May 29, 2015 Report and Recommendation, found Atty. Capela administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and recommended suspension for six months and an order to return P200,000 (the alleged value of the car). On June 20, 2015 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty to suspension for three years and noted the option to pursue recovery of the car’s value in the proper court.
Atty. Capela filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration denying the existence of an attorney‑client relationship (claiming no signed retainer and no receipt of the vehicle), asserting lack of noti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does an affidavit of withdrawal or desistance by the complainant terminate disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer?
- Was there an attorney‑client relationship between Napoleon and Atty. Capela?
- Did Atty. Capela’s failure to appear at scheduled hearings constitute negligence/ conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and what penalty is appropriate?
- Does failure to receive IBP notices due to a changed office address ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)