A.C. No. 10537 - Ramirez vs. Buhayang-Margallo

Reynaldo G. Ramirez, Complainant, engaged legal counsel for a civil action for Quieting of Title entitled Spouses Roque v. Ramirez.
Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo, Respondent, was retained in or about March 2004 by referral and agreed to represent Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 68.

Ramirez alleged that the respondent agreed to a contingent fee of thirty percent of the land subject of the controversy instead of attorneys fees and that Ramirez would pay P1,000.00 per court appearance.
Respondent denied the thirty percent contingent fee arrangement and asserted she accepted the case principally pro bono, charging only travel expenses of P1,000.00 per hearing.
The Regional Trial Court promulgated a decision adverse to Ramirez on October 19, 2006.

Respondent advised Ramirez to appeal and committed to file the appeal before the Court of Appeals; the appeal was perfected and the records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals in 2008.
On December 5, 2008, the Court of Appeals directed Ramirez to file his Appellant’s Brief; respondent told Ramirez she would have the brief prepared.
Ramirez followed up on January 8, 2009; respondent instructed him to meet to sign documents for the brief and later told him there was no word from the Court of Appeals.
On August 26, 2009, respondent informed Ramirez that his appeal had been denied and that further appeal to the Supreme Court was no longer possible because the reglementary period had lapsed.
Ramirez discovered at the Court of Appeals that the Appellant’s Brief was actually filed on April 13, 2009 with a Motion for Reconsideration and Apology for late filing beyond the reglementary period.

Ramirez filed a complaint on January 20, 2010 with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines asserting violations of Canon 17 and Canon 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent defended that she had informed Ramirez and his mother of a fifty percent chance of success, denied the contingent fee, alleged Ramirez delayed meeting her for document signing, and claimed she lost his number because her child erased her contacts.
A mandatory conference was set June 3, 2010; only Ramirez appeared and the conference was reset to July 22, 2010 when both parties appeared and were directed to submit position papers.

Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva recommended reprimand and a stern warning, based on two key findings:

Respondent allowed the reglementary period for filing the Appellant’s Brief to lapse by assuming Ramirez no longer wanted to pursue the case instead of exhausting available means to protect his interest.
Respondent was remiss in her duties as counsel, resulting in the loss of Ramirez’s statutory right to seek recourse with the Court of Appeals.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether respondent violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, by negligently failing to timely prosecute the appeal and by failing to keep the client informed.
Whether the recommended penalty ...(Subscriber-Only)