Title
Macarilay vs. Serina
Case
A.C. No. 6591
Decision Date
May 4, 2005
Complainant paid Atty. SeriAa for legal services, but he failed to file cases, deceived her about case status, and refused to return fees. SC found him guilty of negligence, deceit, and breach of fiduciary duty, suspending him for six months and ordering restitution.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6591)

Background of the Complaint

On September 22, 2003, Marissa L. Macarilay filed a verified Complaint against Atty. Felix B. SeriAa for malpractice and gross misconduct with the IBP-CBD. The complaint stemmed from SeriAa's failure to perform agreed-upon legal services after receiving various payments, including an acceptance fee of P20,000.

Events Leading to the Complaint

In 2000, Complainant and Balaoro purchased a lot from Mohammad but encountered issues with the title transfer due to Mohammad's failure to provide the necessary documentation and subsequent mortgage on the property. After obtaining advice from Ong, Complainant was introduced to Paule, who suggested hiring a lawyer, leading to her meeting with Respondent.

During their initial consultation, Respondent required an acceptance fee and additional payments for notarization and filing fees, totaling P48,000. However, instead of initiating legal action, Respondent claimed he filed an affidavit of adverse claim but had not filed any civil or criminal cases against Mohammad, creating significant confusion and concern for Complainant.

Investigation and Findings

The IBP-CBD convened a mandatory conference on January 13, 2004, where both parties presented their cases. The investigator, Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid Jr., concluded that Respondent failed to provide diligent representation, violating various provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically addressing neglect of client matters and failure to keep the client informed.

Respondent’s Defense

Atty. SeriAa contended that the Complainant was responsible for not filing the suits due to her alleged refusal to sign necessary documents and her delay in providing the defendant's correct address. However, this defense was universally rejected due to a lack of evidence supporting his claims, particularly that he did not proactively inform Complainant of the status of her case or the implications of her actions.

Conclusion of the Case

The investigating commissioner recommended that Respondent be reprimanded or suspended, concluding that he had violated the duties of fidelity and diligence owed to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.