A.C. No. 5834 - Santeco vs. Avance

Complainant Teresita D. Santeco, involved in separate civil actions (Civil Case Nos. 50988 and 97-275), engaged Atty. Luna B. Avance as counsel de parte.
Respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance, a lawyer bound by fiduciary duties, was retained to represent complainant in both cases.

Complainant agreed to pay an acceptance fee of P12,000.00 for legal representation.
Additional payments of P1,500.00 (June 1997) and P500.00 (August 2000) were made in full satisfaction of the fee arrangement.
Respondent, however, failed to issue official receipts for these sums despite repeated demands.

In Civil Case No. 97-275 (action to declare a deed of sale null and void), a critical witness testified on direct examination in April 1998; subsequent hearings led to:

A motion by respondent to reconsider or set aside a July 6, 1998 Order that expunged the testimony of the witness.
Denial of the motion by the trial court on June 30, 1999.

The case was eventually dismissed on August 27, 1999 for failure to prosecute, further compounded by respondent’s non-appearance during hearings.

Respondent made representations that she would file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-275.
Complainant was charged an additional P3,900.00 for the proposed filing; however, no petition was filed, and complainant later discovered the non-filing by verifying with the docket section.
Respondent also allegedly took the official receipt and pictures of the torn-down structures (evidence of the supersedeas bond deposit) under the pretext of needing them for a motion.

Complainant filed a verified administrative complaint with the Committee on Bar Discipline on July 31, 2001.
Orders issued by the Commission on Bar Discipline required respondent to file an Answer within fifteen (15) days, which respondent failed to do.
Subsequent motions by complainant, including the motion to declare respondent in default for non-filing, were served but met with continued non-response by the respondent.
Throughout the proceedings, respondent persistently avoided appearance and submission of required memoranda despite repeated notices.

Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted a report on March 14, 2002, finding respondent culpable of:

Failing to account for the official receipt of the supersedeas bond (violating Canon 16).
Not filing the promised petition for certiorari while charging litigation expenses (violating Canon 18.03).
Abandoning the representation of her client without due notice (violating Canon 20 and Canon 22).

The report originally recommended suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report.
However, the court, noting the gravity of respondent’s gross negligence and malfeasance, found the penalty of two (2) years insufficient.
Respondent was ultimately found guilty of gross misconduct and her suspension was extended to five (5) years.
Additionally, respondent was directed to refund the P3,900.00 received from complainant.
The decision took effect immediately with instructions for copies to be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant and all lower courts.

Whether respondent, as counsel, committed gross misconduct in her representation by:

Failing to issue receipts for payments received from the client.
Neglecting to file the necessary motions and petitions which were crucial to the client’s case.
Abandoning the representation without any proper notice or withdrawal procedures.

Whether respondent’s conduct violated the ethical and professional standards as mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility (including Canons 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22).

Whether the failure to adhere to the directives of the Commission on Bar Discipline and to respond to official orders exacerbated the misconduct.

Whether a suspension period of five (5) years from the practice of law is a just penalty in view of the extent of respondent’s negligence and defiance.

Whether the refund of P3,900.00 to complainant is warranted given that the fee was collected for services that were never rendered in accordance with the representations made.