EN BANC

[A.C. No. 6424. March 4, 2005.]

CONSORCIA S. ROLLON, complainant, vs. Atty. CAMILO

NARAVAL, respondent.

SYLLABUS
Â

1. Â LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; MAY DECLINE EMPLOYMENT AND

REFUSE TO ACCEPT REPRESENTATION IF THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO
CARRY IT OUT EFFECTIVELY OR COMPETENTLY. — Ordinarily, lawyers are not
obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish
to become their client. They may decline employment and refuse to accept
representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively or
competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by
the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care
and utmost devotion. AHDcCT

2. Â ID.; ID.; ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; ESTABLISHED ONCE A

LAWYER ACCEPTS MONEY FROM CLIENT AND GIVES RISE TO THE DUTY AND
FIDELITY TO THE CLIENT'S CAUSE. — Acceptance of money from a client
establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity
to the client's cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention,
diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance. . . . Hence,
practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can efficiently
handle. Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. Once lawyers agree to
handle a case, they should undertake the task with dedication and care. If they
do any less, then they fail their lawyer's oath.

3. Â ID.; ID.; CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; LAWYERS

SHOULD GIVE THEIR CANDID AND BEST OPINION TO THEIR CLIENT ON THE
MERIT OR LACK OF MERIT OF THE CASE, NEITHER OVERSTATING NOR
UNDERSTATING THEIR EVALUATION THEREOF. — Rule 15.05 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers give their candid and best
opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case, neither
overstating nor understating their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case
would have some prospect of success is not only a function, but also an
obligation on the part of lawyers. If they find that their client's cause is
defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and
submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible. The failure of respondent
to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty to "observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients."

4. Â ID.; ID.; ID.; LAWYERS ARE DEEMED TO HOLD IN TRUST THEIR

CLIENT'S MONEY AND PROPERTY THAT MAY COME INTO THEIR POSSESSION. —
Likewise, as earlier pointed out, respondent persistently refused to return the
money of complainant despite her repeated demands. His conduct was clearly
indicative of lack of integrity and moral soundness; he was clinging to
something that did not belong to him, and that he absolutely had no right to
keep or use. Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their client's money and
property that may come into their possession. As respondent obviously did
nothing on the case of complainant, the amount she had given — as evidenced
by the receipt issued by his law office — was never applied to the filing fee. His
failure to return her money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he
had converted it to his own use and thereby betrayed the trust she had reposed
in him. His failure to do so constituted a gross violation of professional ethics
and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

5. Â ID.; ID.; ID.; EXACTS FROM LAWYERS NOT ONLY A FIRM RESPECT
FOR LAW, LEGAL PROCESSES AND THE COURTS, BUT ALSO MANDATES THE
UTMOST DEGREE OF FIDELITY AND GOOD FAITH IN DEALING WITH THE MONEYS
ENTRUSTED TO THEM PURSUANT TO THEIR FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP. — The
Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and
the courts, but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in
dealing with the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary
relationship. Respondent clearly fell short of the demands required of him as a
member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge his duty to his client
makes him answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, to the legal
profession, and to the general public. Given the crucial importance of his role in
the administration of justice, his misconduct diminished the confidence of the
public in the integrity and dignity of the profession.

DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J : p

Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. The latter's money or other property
coming into the former's possession should be deemed to be held in trust and
should not under any circumstance be commingled with the lawyers' own;
much less, used by them. Failure to observe these ethical principles constitutes
professional misconduct and justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

The Case and the Facts

Before us is a letter-complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval, filed by

Consorcia S. Rollon with the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on November 29, 2001. The Affidavit 1 submitted by
complainant alleges the following:

"Sometime in October of 2000, I went to the office of Atty. Camilo

F. Naraval together with my son, Freddie Rollon, to seek his assistance
in a case filed against me before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
Branch 6, Davao City entitled 'Rosita Julaton vs. Consorcia S. Rollon ' for
Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer for Attachment;
 "After going over the documents I brought with me pertaining to
the said case, Atty. Naraval agreed to be my lawyer and I was required
to pay the amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (Php 8,000.00) for the filing
and partial service fee, which amount was paid by me on October 18,
2000, a copy of the Official Receipt is hereto attached as Annex 'A' to
form part hereof; iatdcjur

"As per the instruction of Atty. Naraval, my son, Freddie, returned

to his office the following week to make follow-up on said case.
However, I was informed later by my son Freddie that Atty. Naraval
was not able to act on my case because the latter was so busy. Even
after several follow-ups were made with Atty. Naraval, still there was
no action done on our case;

"Sometime in November 29, 2001, I decided to withdraw the

amount I paid to Atty. Naraval, because of the latter's failure to comply
with our mutual agreement that he will assist me in the above-
mentioned case;

"My son Freddie Rollon went to Atty. Naraval's office that same
day to inform Atty. Naraval of our decision to withdraw the amount I
have paid and to retrieve my documents pertaining to said case.
Unfortunately, despite our several follow-ups, Atty. Naraval always said
that he cannot return the documents because they were in their house,
and that he could not give us back the amount we paid him (Php
8,000.00) because he has no money;

"Having failed to obtain any response, I decided to refer the

matter to Atty. Ramon Edison Batacan, IBP President of Davao City and
to Atty. Pedro Castillo, the Commissioner on Bar D[i]scipline;

xxx xxx xxx."

In an Order dated March 12, 2002, 2 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD), through Director Victor C. Fernandez, directed respondent to submit his
answer to the Complaint. The same directive was reiterated in the CBD's May
31, 2002 Order 3 issued through Commissioner Jovy C. Bernabe. Respondent
did not file any answer despite his receipt of the Orders. 4

Not having heard from him despite adequate notice, the CBD proceeded
with the investigation ex parte. Its Order 5 dated November 11, 2002, issued
through Commissioner Bernabe, required complainant to submit her position
paper within ten days from receipt thereof, after which the case was to be
deemed submitted for resolution.

The CBD received complainant's Position Paper 6 on December 10, 2002.

Report of the Investigating Commissioner

In his Report and Recommendation dated October 16, 2003, Investigating

Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) year for neglect of duty and/or violation of
Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Report reads
in part as follows:

"Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires

every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication, competence
and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. . .
.

"In the case at bar, the deplorable conduct of the respondent in

misrepresenting to the complainant that he will render legal services to
her, and after receiving certain amount from the latter as payment for
'filing fee and service fee' did nothing in return, has caused
unnecessary dishonor to the bar. By his own conduct the respect of the
community to the legal profession, of which he swore to protect, has
been tarnished.

xxx xxx xxx

"In fact, complainant claimed to have been shortchanged by the

respondent when he failed to properly appraised her of the status of
her case which she later on found to have become final and executory.
Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and the complainant
have been decided against the latter and which judgment has long
become final and executory. However, despite full knowledge by the
respondent of such finality based on the documents furnished to him,
respondent withheld such vital information and did not properly
appraise the complainant. Thus, respondent violated the mandate in
Canon 15 . . . " 7

IBP Board of Governors' Resolution

On February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No.
XVI-2004-64 upholding the above-quoted Report. The Board recommended the
suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years for violation
of Rules 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the restitution
of complainant's P8,000.

The Court's Ruling

We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.

Respondent's Administrative Liability

Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as

advocates of any person who may wish to become their client. 8 They may
decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a
position to carry it out effectively or competently. 9 But once they agree to
handle a case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional
Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. 10

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client

relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. 11 Every
case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of importance. 12 The Code of Professional
Responsibility clearly states:

CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and

he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence.

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted

to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.

Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status
of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.

Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can
efficiently handle. 13 Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. Once lawyers
agree to handle a case, they should undertake the task with dedication and
care. If they do any less, then they fail their lawyer's oath. 14

The circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the
amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, respondent failed to render
any legal service in relation to the case of complainant. His continuous inaction
despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling
indifference toward his client's cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a
lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably
failed to return to her the files of the case that had been entrusted to him. To
top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him.

Furthermore, after going through her papers, respondent should have

given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits and the status of the case.
Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and complainant had been
decided against the latter. In fact, the judgment had long become final and
executory. But he withheld such vital information from complainant. Instead, he
demanded P8,000 as "filing and service fee" and thereby gave her hope that
her case would be acted upon. cCHITA

Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers

give their candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit
of the case, neither overstating nor understating their evaluation thereof.
Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of success is not only a
function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers. 15 If they find that their
client's cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to
acquiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible. 16 The
failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of
his duty to "observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients." 17

Likewise, as earlier pointed out, respondent persistently refused to return

the money of complainant despite her repeated demands. His conduct was
clearly indicative of lack of integrity and moral soundness; he was clinging to
something that did not belong to him, and that he absolutely had no right to
keep or use. 18

Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their client's money and property
that may come into their possession. 19 As respondent obviously did nothing on
the case of complainant, the amount she had given — as evidenced by the
receipt issued by his law office — was never applied to the filing fee. His failure
to return her money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had
converted it to his own use and thereby betrayed the trust she had reposed in
him. 20 His failure to do so constituted a gross violation of professional ethics
and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. 21

The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal
processes and the courts, 22 but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity
and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their
fiduciary relationship. 23 Respondent clearly fell short of the demands required
of him as a member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge his duty to his
client makes him answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, to the legal
profession, and to the general public. 24 Given the crucial importance of his role
in the administration of justice, his misconduct diminished the confidence of the
public in the integrity and dignity of the profession. 25

WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05

and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO
RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision, complainant's
eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the rate of six percent
per annum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid. Let copies of this Decision
be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, as well as the National
Office and the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,

Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Choco-Nazario and
Garcia, JJ., concur.

Carpio Morales, J., is on leave.

Â
Footnotes

1. Â Rollo , p. 5.

2. Â Id., p. 15.
3. Â Id., p. 18.

4. Â The March 12, 2002 Order was received on March 27, 2002; and the May
31, 2002 Order, on June 6, 2002. See Registry Return Receipt attached to the
Orders.

5. Â Rollo , p. 19.

6. Â Id., pp. 20-24.

7. Â Report and Recommendation filed on June 3, 2004, pp. 5-7.

8. Â Cuizon v. Macalino, AC No. 4334, July 7, 2004; De Juan v. Baria III , AC No.
5817, May 27, 2004.

9. Â See Rule 18.01, Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides in part.

"A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know
that he is not qualified to render. . . ."

10. Â Fernandez v. Cabrera II, AC No. 5623, December 11, 2003.

11. Â Pariñas v. Paguinto, AC No. 6297, July 13, 2004; Fernandez v. Cabrera II,
supra; Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, 399
SCRA 296, March 20, 2003.

12. Â Schulz v. Flores, AC No. 4219, December 8, 2003 (citing In re: Atty. David
Briones, 415 Phil. 203, August 15, 2001; Santiago v. Fojas , 248 SCRA 68,
September 7, 1995).

13. Â Pariñas v. Paguinto, supra; Moton v. Atty. Cadiao, 377 Phil. 1, November
24, 1999.

14. Â The Lawyer's Oath declares in part: ". . . I will delay no man for money or
malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God." See §3, Rule
138, Rules of Court.

15. Â Agpalo, Legal Ethics (1992, 5th ed.), p. 152.

16. Â Castañeda v. Ago, 65 SCRA 505, July 30, 1975.

17. Â Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility.

18. Â See Igual v. Javier, 324 Phil. 698, March 7, 1996.

19. Â Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility; Barnachea v. Quiocho , 399

SCRA 1, March 11, 2003.

20. Â Schulz v. Flores, supra; Barnachea v. Quiocho, supra ; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty.

Baterina, 412 Phil. 419, June 28, 2001.

21. Â Barnachea v. Quiocho, supra ; Burbe v. Magulta, 383 SCRA 276, June 10,
2002; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina, supra; Gonato v. Adaza, 385 Phil. 426,
March 27, 2000.
22. Â "CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and for legal processes."

23. Â Berbano v. Barcelona, 410 SCRA 258, September 3, 2003; Igual v. Javier,
supra.

24. Â Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, supra.

25. Â Grande v. De Silva, 407 SCRA 310, July 29, 2003.