Case Summary (A.C. No. 9832)
Allegations Against the Respondent
The complainant alleged a lack of action from the respondent relating to her cases, which culminated in her repeated inquiries and demands for the return of the acceptance fee. Respondent's non-compliance included failing to appear in hearings, not responding to the complainant’s communications, and ultimately denying her requests for a refund of the fee. Several attempts by the complainant to address these issues through various complaints to higher authorities, including the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the President, were made without any resolution.
The IBP Proceedings
Upon referral from the Court, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter. A mandatory conference was convened on June 2, 2014, attended only by the complainant. Follow-up compliance was demanded, yet respondent's absence persisted, further establishing a pattern of neglect.
Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
The Investigating Commissioner (IC) concluded that respondent had indeed violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically noting failures in rendering legal services, attending hearings, and refusing to return the fee. As a result, the IC recommended a one-year suspension from practice and an order for reimbursement of the acceptance fee plus interest.
IBP Board of Governors Resolution
In a resolution dated February 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendations of the IC. The respondent's appeal, citing ignorance of the case and procedural discrepancies regarding notice, was subsequently denied by the IBP in September 2016.
Court's Ruling on Admin Liability
The Court affirmed the IBP's findings, concluding that respondent was guilty of neglect and failure to uphold his duties as a lawyer. The provisions of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR were unequivocally breached, highlighting that a lawyer must diligently serve and keep the client informed about their case. The Court emphasized that his negligence amounted to inexcusable conduct warranting administrative liability.
Respondent's Penalty and Restitution
The Court decided on a six-month suspension, align
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9832)
Overview of the Case
- The case arises from a letter-complaint filed on February 10, 2013, by complainant Lolita R. Martin against respondent Atty. Jesus M. Dela Cruz.
- The complaint addresses Dela Cruz's failure to return an acceptance fee of P60,000.00, despite multiple demands from the complainant.
Background Facts
- In 2012, Martin engaged Dela Cruz's legal services concerning several cases pending before the Professional Regulation Commission, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP-QC), and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
- Martin provided Dela Cruz with photocopies of the relevant case files and paid him P60,000.00 as an acceptance fee, evidenced by an Official Receipt dated August 23, 2012.
- From December 21, 2012, to February 6, 2013, Martin made repeated attempts to contact Dela Cruz about the status of her cases, but he was unavailable.
- Dela Cruz failed to appear in a preliminary investigation hearing scheduled for January 16, 2013, causing it to be reset to February 20, 2013.
- Despite Martin's persistent inquiries and written requests for the return of the acceptance fee, Dela Cruz neither responded nor returned the money.
- After several months of non-communication, Dela Cruz eventually contacted Martin, assuring her that he would handle her cases, particularly an Estafa case, but he again failed to attend the scheduled preliminary investigation.
Complainant's Actions
- Frustrated by Dela Cruz's lack of action and communication, Martin submitted letter-complaints to both the Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Action Center regarding Dela Cruz's conduct.
- The Supreme Court issued a Resolution on June 17, 2