FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 9176, December 05, 2019
AGUSTIN ABOY, SR., COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
For resolution is an Administrative Complaint1 filed by Agustin Aboy (complainant) against respondent Atty. Leo B. Diocos (Atty. Diocos) for estafa, abuse of power, and administrative connivance with Judge Winston M. Villegas and Atty. Rod Salazar, President of Pepsi Cola Production of the Philippines.
The facts are as follows.
Complainant alleged that he is the President of all the holders of Pepsi Cola 349 cap holders in Negros Oriental which is a winning code in a promo held by the Pepsi Cola Company. Atty. Diocos, on the other hand, was hired by the cap holders as counsel in their complaint for specific performance, sum of money, breach of contract and damages against Pepsi Cola Company. The association's then first president, Tumolac, and Atty. Diocos agreed that the latter would get 20% if the case progresses in court.2 He further averred that Atty. Diocos collected Pl50.00 each from all the cap 349 holders which summed up to more than five hundred persons.3 The subject case was, subsequently, filed in court and tried before the sala of Judge Winston Villegas (Judge Villegas ).
On November 7, 2007,4 however, Judge Villegas ordered the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action. After learning the same, complainant and Gloria Ruamar (Ruamar), the president of the cap holders succeeding Tumolak, went to Judge Villegas to ask for a copy of his order but the latter allegedly refused to accede to their request. They then approached Atty. Diocos to ask for the same Order, but he refused as well, and instead asked them to produce P90,000.00 so that he will appeal their case. Disappointed, Ruamar and complainant asked Atty. Diocos to withdraw his services so they can hire another counsel to appeal their case, but he failed to issue his withdrawal.
In 2009, complainant and Ruamar went back to Judge Villegas to ask for a copy of the Decision and this time they were able to secure a copy of the Decision. They found out that the ground for the dismissal of their case was the failure of Atty. Diocos to pay docket fees. Complainant, however, alleged that they lost the copy of the Decision and when they asked for another copy, they discovered that the ground for the dismissal was changed to absence of cause of action. Complainant, thus, accused Atty. Diocos of conniving with Judge Villegas in dismissing their case.
Hence, this instant administrative complaint against Atty. Diocos.
On September 12, 2011, the Court resolved to require Atty. Diocos to file his Comment on the charges against him.5
In his Comment6 dated November 7, 2011, Atty. Diocos admitted that Tumolac engaged his services to prosecute the cause of the 349 cap holders, but denied that he had collected the amount of P150.00 from each of the members.7 He also denied that complainant had been authorized to act as president of the cap holders.
Atty. Diocos contend that he gave his clients a copy of the Decision and told them to photocopy it since they are more than one hundred in number. He claimed that under the law, the counsel is not dutybound to furnish his clients a copy of the Decision in a case he handles. As to the request of withdrawal, he claimed that he could not have done it since the case was already terminated with finality.
He maintained that the case of the cap holders has no cause of action and that his clients failed to pay him his attorney's fees. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this administrative complaint.
In a Resolution8 dated February 15, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the instant complaint for investigation, report and recommendation.
In its Report and Recommendation9 dated April 28, 2013, Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended that Atty. Diocos be censured for his negligence as counsel to his client.
In Resolution No. XX-2013-62710 dated May 11, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) resolved to adopt and approve with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and instead recommended that Atty. Diocos be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.
Aggrieved, on September 3, 2013, Atty. Diocos filed a Motion for Reconsideration.11 Meanwhile, complainant filed a Motion12 to direct Atty. Diocos to return and surrender to him the amount of Three Hundred Sixty Four Million Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P364,520,000.00), plus damages.
In an Extended Resolution13 dated February 1, 2017, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to deny Atty. Diocos' Motion for Reconsideration dated September 3, 2013 and complainant's Motion to return and surrender to complainant the amount of Three Hundred Sixty-Four Million Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P364,520,000.00), plus damages. It further affirmed the Board of Governors' Resolution No. XX-2013-627 dated May 11, 2013, which adopted and approved with 1nodification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and instead recommended that Atty. Diocos be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.
In Resolution No. XXII-2017-971 dated April 19, 2017, the Board of Governors resolved to approve the release of the Extended Resolution dated February 1, 2017.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITHIt is not enough that lawyers inform their clients of the dismissal of the case. It is also the lawyer's duty to give information as to why the case was dismissed. To be clear, a lawyer need not wait for their clients to ask for information but must advise them without delay about matters essential for them to avail of legal remedies.18 A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her client. Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the management of the cases by giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer.19
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 the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Otherwise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion ofhis utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his _client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every. such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.21In In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani ,22 the Court reminded lawyers that their actions or omissions are binding on their clients and that they are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and that anyone who deals with them has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to their client's cause.
Endnotes:
* Additional member per Special Orde r No. 2726 dated October 25, 2019.
1Rollo, pp. 1-11.
2Id.
3Id. at 2.
4Id. at 84·94.
5Id. at 176.
6Id. at 213-217.
7Id. at 214.
8Id. at219-220.
9Id. at 331-334.
10Id. at 330.
11Id. at 343-350.
12Id. at 355.
13Id. at 615-619.
14Advincula v. Atty. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431, 445-446 (2007).
15Cabas v. Atty. Sususco, et al. , 787 Phil. 167, 174 (2016).
16Rollo, p. 571.
17Samonte v. Atty. Jumamil, 813 Phil. 795, 802 (2017).
18Spouses Montecillo v. Atty. Gatchalian, 811 Phil. 636, 643 (2 017).
19Solidon v. Atty. Macalalad, 627 Phil. 284, 291 (2010).
20 462 Phil. 496 (2003).
21Id. at 505-506. (Emphasis ours)
22 92 Phil. 229, 231-232 (2000).
23 496 Phil. 1, 4 (2005).
24 493 Phil. 553, 560 (2005).
25Samonte v. Atty. Jumamil, supra note 17.