Case Digest (A.C. No. 6238)
Facts:
Linda Villariasa-Riesenbeck v. Atty. Jaynes C. Abarrientos, A.C. No. 6238 (Formerly CBD Case No. 00-762), November 04, 2004, the Supreme Court First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Linda Villariasa‑Riesenbeck engaged Atty. Jaynes C. Abarrientos to handle her appeal from an adverse Court of Appeals decision in CA‑G.R. CV No. 45655. On February 24, 2000 and March 4, 2000 she paid respondent two partial sums of P5,000 each; the receipts prepared by respondent described the payments as partial payment for preparation of a Motion for Reconsideration and “eventually Petition for Review to the Supreme Court,” and showed a remaining balance of P5,000 payable upon filing the petition.
On September 11, 2000, complainant filed a Verified Letter‑Complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), charging respondent with professional misconduct and neglect of duty. She alleged that respondent prepared and filed a Motion for Reconsideration; that the Motion was denied and that respondent received the denial on April 18, 2000; but that respondent did not inform her and failed to file the petition for review within the Supreme Court’s reglementary period. Complainant recounted multiple personal visits to respondent’s office in May and June 2000 and several telephone attempts; she learned on July 4, 2000 that the period to file the petition had already expired.
In his Answer (filed November 14, 2000), respondent admitted filing the Motion for Reconsideration and claimed he attempted to contact complainant through secretaries and a messenger but that complainant could not be located; he asserted he had warned the clients that further appeal would be futile and that he had not agreed to file a petition unless he decided to do so. Complainant submitted a joint affidavit of her landlady and the landlady’s housemaid denying any calls or visits from respondent’s personnel and demonstrating that the contact information complainant had given respondent would have allowed contact.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found violations of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By Resolution No. XVI‑2003‑173 dated September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD fin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit serious misconduct and negligence in his performance as a lawyer warranting disciplinary sanction?
- Is a refund of P5,000 warranted given the fees paid and the service...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)