A.C. No. 9176 - Aboy, Sr. vs. Diocos

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9176)

Factual Background

Agustin Aboy, Sr. alleged that he represented the association of Pepsi Cola 349 cap holders in Negros Oriental and that Atty. Leo B. Diocos was engaged as counsel to prosecute claims for specific performance, sum of money, breach of contract and damages against the Pepsi Cola Company. The association’s then president and Atty. Diocos allegedly agreed that the lawyer would receive twenty percent if the case progressed. Complainant averred that Atty. Diocos collected P150.00 from each of more than five hundred cap holders. The action was tried before Judge Winston Villegas and, on November 7, 2007, was dismissed. Complainant and a succeeding association president, Gloria Ruamar, claimed that Atty. Diocos refused to furnish a copy of the court order, demanded P90,000.00 to appeal, failed to file an appeal, refused to withdraw, and thereafter that the ground of dismissal was altered from nonpayment of docket fees to absence of cause of action, prompting accusations of connivance with Judge Villegas.

Procedural History

The Court required Atty. Leo B. Diocos to file a Comment on September 12, 2011, which he filed on November 7, 2011, admitting his engagement but denying the collection allegations, the complainant’s authority, and claiming he supplied a copy of the Decision and that the case lacked cause of action. The matter was referred for investigation; Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended censure in a Report and Recommendation dated April 28, 2013. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted the Report with modification and recommended a three-month suspension in Resolution No. XX-2013-627 dated May 11, 2013. Atty. Diocos filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 3, 2013. Complainant moved for the return and surrender of P364,520,000.00. The IBP-Board of Governors denied the motions and affirmed its recommendation in an Extended Resolution dated February 1, 2017, which the Board approved on April 19, 2017. The matter returned to the Court for resolution.

The Parties' Contentions

Agustin Aboy, Sr. maintained that Atty. Leo B. Diocos collected P150.00 from each cap holder, refused to furnish the Decision, demanded money to pursue an appeal, and colluded with Judge Villegas to alter the stated ground of dismissal. Atty. Diocos admitted his engagement but denied collecting P150.00 from members, denied that complainant was authorized as president, asserted that he had given clients a copy of the Decision and advised them to photocopy it because they were numerous, contended that a counsel is not dutybound to furnish a copy of a decision, asserted that withdrawal was impossible because the case was final, and maintained that the action had no cause of action and that his clients had failed to pay fees.

Issue Presented

Whether Atty. Leo B. Diocos should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, for negligence and failure to keep clients informed.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

The Investigating Commissioner recommended censure. The IBP-Board of Governors adopted and modified that recommendation, proposing suspension for three months. The Board later denied both Atty. Diocos' Motion for Reconsideration and the complainant’s motion for the return of P364,520,000.00, and affirmed its three-month suspension recommendation in an Extended Resolution dated February 1, 2017.

Supreme Court's Analysis of Evidence and Burden of Proof

The Court reiterated that the burden of proof in lawyer disciplinary proceedings rests on the complainant, who must establish the case by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof (see Advincula v. Atty. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431, 445-446 (2007)), and that mere allegation, suspicion or speculation cannot substitute for proof (Cabas v. Atty. Sususco, et al., 787 Phil. 167, 174 (2016)). The Court found that while Atty. Diocos conceded his engagement, complainant failed to prove the alleged collection of P150.00 per cap holder because no receipts or affidavits from the members were presented. Complainant also failed to prove the existence of two different versions of the Decision because no copies of the two purported versions were produced.

Supreme Court's Finding of Negligence and Applicable Duties

Notwithstanding the evidentiary failures, the Court found that Atty. Leo B. Diocos breached his duty of competence and diligence. The Court observed that the period for appeal was allowed to lapse and that counsel’s personal view of the correctness of the trial court’s dismissal did not relieve him of the duty to inform clients of adverse rulings and possible remedies. The Court cited Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, holding that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence, shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to requests for information. The Court emphasized precedent that lawyers must present every remedy or defense authorized by law regardless of personal views (Abay v. Atty. Montesino, 462 Phil. 496 (2003)), must be acquainted with rudiments of law and procedure (In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani, 92 Phil. 229 (2000)), and that failure to render services or to file required submissions constitutes a violation of Canon 18 (Reyes v. Vitan, 496 Phil. 1 (2005); Canoy v. Atty. Ortiz, 493 Phil. 553 (2005)).

Ruling and Penalty

The Court adopted the factual

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9176)

Parties and Procedural Posture

AGUSTIN ABOY, SR., COMPLAINANT filed an administrative complaint for estafa, abuse of power, and administrative connivance against ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT.
ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT was the counsel of an association of Pepsi Cola "349 cap holders" in a case for specific performance, sum of money, breach of contract, and damages.
The complaint was referred for investigation, report, and recommendation and was the subject of actions and resolutions by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court.
The Court resolved the matter and rendered judgment finding ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Key Factual Allegations

AGUSTIN ABOY, SR., COMPLAINANT alleged that he was president of the association of all Pepsi Cola 349 cap holders who asserted a winning promo code.
ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT was allegedly engaged by the cap holders and agreed with the association's former president that he would receive twenty percent if the case progressed.
AGUSTIN ABOY, SR., COMPLAINANT alleged that ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT collected PHP 150.00 from each cap holder, totaling contributions from more than five hundred persons.
The case was dismissed on November 7, 2007 by Judge Winston Villegas for alleged lack of cause of action, and the complainants alleged they were initially denied a copy of the order.
AGUSTIN ABOY, SR., COMPLAINANT alleged that a copy of the decision first showed dismissal for nonpayment of docket fees but was later changed to dismissal for lack of cause of action, leading to an accusation of connivance between ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT and Judge Villegas.
ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT denied receipt of PHP 150.00 from each member, denied complainant's authority as president, and stated that he gave his clients a copy of the decision and that he was not dutybound to furnish a copy under law.

Procedural History

The Court required ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT to file a Comment on September 12, 2011, and received his Comment dated November 7, 2011.
The complaint was investigated and Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero issued a Report and Recommendation dated April 28, 2013 recommending censure.
The IBP-Board of Governors adopted and modified the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation on May 11, 2013 and recommended a three-month suspension.
ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 3, 2013, which the IBP denied in an Extended Resolution dated February 1, 2017.
The IBP-Board of Governors approved release of the Extended Resolution on April 19, 2017, and the matter proceeded to the Court for final disposition.

Issues

Whether ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the complainant established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof that ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT committed the alleged acts of misconduct including collection of fees and connivance with the trial judge.
What penalty, if any, should be imposed for violations of Canon 18 and its rules.

Contentions of the Parties

AGUSTIN ABOY, SR., COMPLAINANT contended that ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT collected PHP 150.00 from each cap holder, refused to furnish the decision, demanded PHP 90,000.00 to appeal, failed to withdraw when requested, and connived with the trial judge to chan