Leg Pro

A.C. No. 7902. September 30, 2008.*TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, complainant, vs. ATTY. GODWIN R.
VALDEZ, respondent.Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an

errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.—The
appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial
discretion based on the facts of the case. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides, viz.: Sec.
27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.—A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The
practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar
may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court; and (7) willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. A lawyer may be disbarred
or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court.Same; Same; Same; Deceit; Words and Phrases; Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude
and includes anything done contrary to justice, modesty or good morals—it is an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his _______________* EN
BANC.119VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008119Overgaard vs. Valdezfellowmen or to society in general,
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.—Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.” Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done contrary to justice,
modesty or good morals. It is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals. Representing to the complainant that he would take care of the cases filed against him,
assuring the complainant that his property involved in a civil case would be safeguarded, and then
collecting the full amount of legal fees of PhP900,000.00, only to desert the complainant after receipt of
the fees, were manifestly deceitful and dishonest.Same; Same; Same; The relationship of an attorney to
his client is highly fiduciary.—The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly fiduciary. Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty
in all his dealings and transactions with his client.” Necessity and public interest enjoin lawyers to be
honest and truthful when dealing with his client. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. However, instead of devoting himself to the
client’s cause, the respondent avoided the complainant, forgot about the cases he was handling for him
and ostensibly abandoned him. The client reposed his trust in his lawyer with full faith that the lawyer
would not betray him or abscond from his responsibilities. By assuring the complainant that he would
take care of the cases included in the Retainer Agreement, and even accepting fees, the respondent
defrauded the complainant when he did not do a single thing he was expected to do.Same; Same; Same;
Respondent lawyer was not just incompetent, he was practically useless; he was not just negligent, he
was indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant, he prejudiced the client.—A lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Respondent should indeed be
held liable, for he was not just incompetent, he was practically useless; he was not just negligent,
120120SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDOvergaard vs. Valdezhe was indolent; and rather than
being of help to the complainant, he prejudiced the client. Respondent’s inaction with respect to the
matters entrusted to his care is obvious; and his failure to file an answer to the complaint for
disbarment against him and to attend the hearings in connection therewith, without any explanation or
request for resetting, despite proper notice from the IBP, is clear evidence of negligence on his
part.Same; Same; Same; A lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the status of his case and to
respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.—The Code of Professional
Responsibility further provides that a lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the status of his
case and to respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. The respondent did
the opposite. Despite the complainant’s efforts to consult him and notwithstanding numerous attempts
to contact him, simply to ask for an update of the status of the cases, the respondent was able to avoid
the complainant and never bothered to reply.Same; Same; Same; Attorney’s Fees; Where a lawyer did
not carry out any of the services he was engaged to perform, nor did he appear in court or make any
payment in connection with litigation, or give any explanation as to how such a large sum of money was
spent and allocated, he must immediately return the money he received from the client upon
demand.—Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, provides that “a lawyer shall
account for all money and property collected or received for and from the client.” The complainant paid
$16,854.00 to the respondent via telegraphic bank transfer. This was considered as complete payment
for the PhP900,000.00 that was stipulated as the consideration for the legal services to be rendered.
However, since the respondent did not carry out any of the services he was engaged to perform, nor did
he appear in court or make any payment in connection with litigation, or give any explanation as to how
such a large sum of money was spent and allocated, he must immediately return the money he received
from the client upon demand. However, he refused to return the money he received from the
complainant despite written demands, and was not even able to give a single report regarding the status
of the cases. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise
to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose—such as
for filing121VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008121Overgaard vs. Valdez fees—but not used for failure to file
the case, must immediately be returned to the client on demand.Same; Same; Same; The practice of law
is not a right, but a privilege—it is granted only to those of good moral character.—The practice of law is
not a right, but a privilege. It is granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a
high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all
times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including
suspension and disbarment.Same; Same; Same; The practice of law is a profession, a form of public
trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral
character—those who are unable or unwilling to comply with the responsibilities and meet the
standards of the profession are unworthy of the privilege to practice law.—The respondent
demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his client but
also a wanton disregard for his duties as a lawyer. It is deplorable that members of the bar, such as the
respondent, betray not only the trust of their client, but also public trust. For the practice of law is a
profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and
who possess good moral character. Those who are unable or unwilling to comply with the
responsibilities and meet the standards of the profession are unworthy of the privilege to practice law.
We must protect the administration of justice by requiring those who exercise this function to be
competent, honorable and reliable in order that the courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in
them.Same; Same; Same; Respondent lawyer’s incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to
his client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in him as a
member of the bar.—In this case, we find that suspension for three years recommended by the IBP is
not sufficient punishment for the unacceptable acts and omissions of respondent. The acts of the
respondent constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence and
appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue dis-
122122SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDOvergaard vs. Valdezcharging the trust reposed in him
as a member of the bar. We could not find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter
penalty. For violating elementary principles of professional ethics and failing to observe the fundamental
duties of honesty and good faith, the respondent has proven himself unworthy of membership in this
noble profession.ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment. The facts are stated in the
opinion of the Court. Montesa and Associates for complainant.PER CURIAM:Complainant seeks the
disbarment of Atty. Godwin R. Valdez from the practice of law for gross malpractice, immoral character,
dishonesty and deceitful conduct. The complainant alleges that despite receipt of legal fees in
compliance with a Retainer Agreement, the respondent refused to perform any of his obligations under
their contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s requests for a report of the status of the
cases entrusted to his care, and rejected demands for return of the money paid to him.On December 16,
2005, the complainant, Torben B. Overgaard, a Dutch national, through his business partner John
Bradley, entered into a Retainer Agreement1 with the respondent, Atty. Godwin R. Valdez. For the
amount of PhP900,000.00, the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to represent him as
his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed against him, all pending in Antipolo City;
including a dismissed complaint which was appealed before the Department of Justice. The Agreement
stipulated that fees would cover acceptance and attorney’s_______________1 Rollo, p. 3.123VOL. 567,
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008123Overgaard vs. Valdezfees, expenses of litigation, other legal incidental
expenses, and appearance fees.2The cases filed by the complainant included a complaint for Estafa,
Grave Threats, Coercion, Unjust Vexation and Oral Defamation3 pending before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Antipolo and a civil case for Mandamus, Injunction with prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order and Damages4 which is on trial at Branch 71, Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. On the other
hand, the cases filed against the complainant included a criminal case for Other Light Threats at Branch
2 of the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo,5 and violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, the
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 20046 before the Family Court of Antipolo City.
A complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms was also filed against Torben Overgaard which was
dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Antipolo City. This was appealed to the Department of Justice by
way of Petition for Review.7Upon the execution of the Retainer Agreement, the complainant paid the
respondent USD16,854.00 through telegraphic bank transfer,8 as full payment for the services to be
rendered under the Agreement. The respondent then assured the complainant that he would take good
care of the cases he was handling for the complainant.9On April 11, 2006, four months after the
execution of the Retainer Agreement, the complainant, through his business partner John Bradley,
demanded from the respondent a report of the action he had taken with respect to the cases en-
_______________2 Id.3 Id., p. 5.4 Id., p. 6.5 Id., p. 7.6 Id., p. 8.7 Id., p. 98 Id., pp. 4, 45.9 Id., p.
5.124124SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDOvergaard vs. Valdeztrusted to him. However, despite
his continued efforts to contact the respondent to inquire on the status of the cases, he was unable to
reach him; his phone calls were not answered and his electronic mails were ignored.10The complainant
had no knowledge of the developments of the cases that the respondent was handling for him. Upon his
own inquiry, he was dismayed to find out that the respondent did not file his entry of appearance in the
cases for Other Light Threats and Violation of Section 5(a) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Children Act.11 The respondent also did not inform him that he was entitled to prepare a Counter-
Affidavit to answer the complaint for Other Light Threats. The complainant had no knowledge that there
had already been arraignments for the criminal cases against him, and that there were already warrants
of arrest12 issued for his failure to attend the arraignments. He was constrained to engage the services
of another lawyer in order to file a Motion to Lift the Warrant of Arrest in the case for Other Light
Threats,13 and an Omnibus Motion to Revive the Case and Lift the Warrant of Arrest in the case for
Violation of Section 5(a) of the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act.14The complainant
alleges that the respondent did not do a single thing with respect to the cases covered under the
Retainer Agreement. Not only did the respondent fail to enter his appearance in the criminal cases filed
against the complainant, he also neglected to file an entry of appearance in the civil case for Mandamus,
Injunction and Damages that the complainant filed. The respondent also did not file a Comment on the
complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms_______________10 Id., p. 46.11 Id., p. 2.12 Id., pp. 10 and
11.13 Id., p. 72.14 Id., p. 75.125VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008125Overgaard vs. Valdezwhich was
dismissed and under review at the Department of Justice.15Due to the above lapses of the respondent,
on November 27, 2006, the complainant wrote the respondent and demanded the return of the
documents which were turned over to him, as well as the PhP900,000.00 that was paid in consideration
of the cases he was supposed to handle for the complainant.16 However, complainant was unable to
get any word from the respondent despite repeated and continuous efforts to get in touch with
him.Hence, on December 28, 2006, Torben Overgaard was constrained to file an administrative
complaint against Atty. Godwin R. Valdez before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, alleging that the
respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.17 Despite the order to
submit an Answer to the complaint against him,18 the respondent failed to comply. A Mandatory
Conference was set on September 21, 2007,19 but the respondent failed to attend despite being duly
notified.20 This prompted the Commission on Bar Discipline to issue an Order declaring the respondent
in default for failure to submit an Answer and failure to attend the Mandatory Conference.21 The
investigation proceeded ex parte. The complainant submitted his position paper on October 5, 2007,22
with a prayer that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law, and to be ordered to return the
amount of PhP900,000.00. A Clarificatory Hearing was scheduled on_______________15 Id., p. 23-24.16
Id., pp. 12 and 40.17 The administrative complaint was docketed as CBD Case No. 06-1894.18 Rollo, p.
13.19 Id., p. 19.20 Id.21 Id., p. 21.22 Id., p. 22.126126SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDOvergaard
vs. Valdez December 11, 2007,23 and again, it was only the complainant who was in attendance; the
respondent failed to attend the hearing despite notice. The case was then submitted for resolution
based on the pleadings submitted by the complainant and the hearings conducted.24Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Antonio S. Tria, to whom the instant disciplinary case
was assigned for investigation, report and recommendation, found the respondent guilty of violating
Canon 15, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 17, Canon 18, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In his Report dated January 29, 2008, he recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years. The IBP Board of Governors, through Resolution
No. XVIII-2008-126, dated March 6, 2008, approved the recommendation of Commissioner Tria, and
further ordered the complainant to return the PhP900,000.00 to the complainant within 60 days from
receipt of the notice.We agree. We find the respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez to have committed
multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.The appropriate penalty to
be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of
the case. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides, viz.:“Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension
of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully_______________23 Id., p. 41.24 Id., p. 43.127VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008127Overgaard vs.
Valdezappearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting
cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.”Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5)
violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7)
willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended
for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.The
respondent has indubitably fallen below the exacting standards demanded of members of the bar. He
did not merely neglect his client’s cause, he abandoned his client and left him without any recourse but
to hire another lawyer. He not only failed to properly handle the cases which were entrusted to his care,
he refused to do a single thing in connection with these cases. He did not file any pleading to defend his
client; he did not even enter his appearance in these cases. Moreover, he disregarded the complainant’s
letters and electronic mails and rejected the complainant’s phone calls. All the complainant was asking
for was a report of the status of the cases but the respondent could not be reached no matter what the
complainant did to get in touch with him. After receipt of the full amount of fees under the Retainer
Agreement, he simply disappeared, leaving the client defenseless and plainly prejudiced in the cases
against him. Warrants of arrest were even issued against the complainant due to the respondent’s gross
and inexcusable negligence in failing to ascertain the status of the case and to inform his client of the
arraignment. It was not a mere failure on the respondent’s 128128SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDOvergaard vs. Valdezpart to inform the complainant of matters concerning the cases, it was
an unmistakable evasion of duty. To hide from the complainant, avoid his calls, ignore his letters, and
leave him helpless is unforgivable; and to commit all these acts and omissions after receiving the full
amount of legal fees and after assuring the client of his commitment and responsibility violates the Code
of Professional Responsibility.Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Deceitful conduct
involves moral turpitude and includes anything done contrary to justice, modesty or good morals.25 It is
an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his
fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.26
Representing to the complainant that he would take care of the cases filed against him,27 assuring the
complainant that his property involved in a civil case would be safeguarded,28 and then collecting the
full amount of legal fees of PhP900,000.00, only to desert the complainant after receipt of the fees,
were manifestly deceitful and dishonest.The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly fiduciary.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.” Necessity and public interest
enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with his client. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.29 However, instead of
devoting himself to the client’s cause, the respondent avoided the com-_______________25 In re Basa,
41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920), citing Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.26 In re Gutierrez, AC No. L-363, July 31, 1962,
5 SCRA 661.27 Rollo, at p. 4.28 Id., at p. 26.29 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17.129VOL.
567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008129Overgaard vs. Valdezplainant, forgot about the cases he was handling for
him and ostensibly abandoned him. The client reposed his trust in his lawyer with full faith that the
lawyer would not betray him or abscond from his responsibilities. By assuring the complainant that he
would take care of the cases included in the Retainer Agreement, and even accepting fees, the
respondent defrauded the complainant when he did not do a single thing he was expected to do.A
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.30 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.31 Respondent
should indeed be held liable, for he was not just incompetent, he was practically useless; he was not just
negligent, he was indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant, he prejudiced the client.
Respondent’s inaction with respect to the matters entrusted to his care is obvious; and his failure to file
an answer to the complaint for disbarment against him and to attend the hearings in connection
therewith, without any explanation or request for resetting, despite proper notice from the IBP, is clear
evidence of negligence on his part.The Code of Professional Responsibility further provides that a lawyer
is required to keep the client informed of the status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time
to the client’s request for information.32 The respondent did the opposite. Despite the complainant’s
efforts to consult him and notwithstanding numerous attempts to contact him, simply to ask for an
update of the status of the cases, the respondent was able to avoid the complainant and never bothered
to reply._______________30 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18.31 Code of Professional
Responsibility, Canon 18, Rule 18.03.32 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18, Rule
18.04.130130SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDOvergaard vs. ValdezAfter months of waiting for a
reply from the respondent, and discovering that the respondent had been remiss in his duties, the
complainant demanded the return of the documents he had turned over to the respondent. He also
demanded the return of the money he had paid for the legal services that were not rendered and
expenses of litigation which were not incurred. However, the respondent rejected the complainant’s
demands.Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, provides that “a lawyer shall
account for all money and property collected or received for and from the client.” The complainant paid
$16,854.00 to the respondent via telegraphic bank transfer. This was considered as complete payment
for the PhP900,000.00 that was stipulated as the consideration for the legal services to be rendered.
However, since the respondent did not carry out any of the services he was engaged to perform, nor did
he appear in court or make any payment in connection with litigation, or give any explanation as to how
such a large sum of money was spent and allocated, he must immediately return the money he received
from the client upon demand. However, he refused to return the money he received from the
complainant despite written demands, and was not even able to give a single report regarding the status
of the cases.Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise
to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose—such as
for filing fees—but not used for failure to file the case, must immediately be returned to the client on
demand.33In Sencio v. Calvadores,34 the respondent lawyer Sencio was engaged to file a case, which he
failed to do. His client_______________33 Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, March 11, 2003, 399
SCRA 1.34 A.C. No. 5841, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 393.131VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30,
2008131Overgaard vs. Valdez demanded that he return the money which was paid to him but he
refused. Sencio similarly failed to answer the complaint and disregarded the orders and notices of the
IBP on many occasions.35 The respondent lawyer was ordered to return the money that he received
from the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of the
resolution until the return of the amount.36The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted
only to those of good moral character.37 The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing.38 Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing
with their clients or the public at large,39 and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and
disbarment.40The respondent demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack of responsibility to
the courts and his client but also a wanton disregard for his duties as a lawyer. It is deplorable that
members of the bar, such as the respondent, betray not only the trust of their client, but also public
trust. For the practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is
entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral character.41 Those who are unable or
unwilling to comply with the responsibilities and_______________35 Id.36 See also Emiliano Court
Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Atty. Michael Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162, March 20, 2003, 399
SCRA 296.37 People v. Santodides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 310.38 Maligsa v.
Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408, 413.39 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc.
v. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 406.40 Ere v. Rubi, A.C. No. 5176, December
14, 1999, 320 SCRA 617.41 Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil. 477 (1944).132132SUPREME
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDOvergaard vs. Valdezmeet the standards of the profession are unworthy
of the privilege to practice law. We must protect the administration of justice by requiring those who
exercise this function to be competent, honorable and reliable in order that the courts and clients may
rightly repose confidence in them.In this case, we find that suspension for three years recommended by
the IBP is not sufficient punishment for the unacceptable acts and omissions of respondent. The acts of
the respondent constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence
and appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue
discharging the trust reposed in him as a member of the bar. We could not find any mitigating
circumstances to recommend a lighter penalty. For violating elementary principles of professional ethics
and failing to observe the fundamental duties of honesty and good faith, the respondent has proven
himself unworthy of membership in this noble profession.IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Godwin
R. Valdez is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is
ORDERED to immediately return to Torben B. Overgaard the amount of $16,854.00 or its equivalent in
Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum
from November 27, 2006, the date of extrajudicial demand. A twelve percent (12%) interest per annum,
in lieu of six percent (6%), shall be imposed on such amount from the date of promulgation of this
decision until the payment thereof. He is further ORDERED to immediately return all papers and
documents received from the complainant.Copies of this Decision shall be served on the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and all courts.133VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30,
2008133Overgaard vs. ValdezSO ORDERED.Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-
Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De
Castro and Brion, JJ., concur.Corona, J., On Official Leave.Atty. Godwin R. Valdez disbarred, his name
ordered stricken from Roll of Attorneys.Notes.—The purpose of disbarment is not meant as a
punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the courts
and the public from members of the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the
esteemed and noble profession. (Yap-Paras vs. Paras, 523 SCRA 358 [2007])In view of the nature and
consequences of a disciplinary proceeding, observance of due process, as in other JUDICIAL
determinations, is imperative along with a presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. (Salmingo v.
Rubica, 527 SCRA 1 [2007])——o0o—— Overgaard vs. Valdez, 567 SCRA 118, A.C. No. 7902 September
30, 2008
A.C. No. 6353. February 27, 2006.* SPOUSES DAVID and MARISA WILLIAMS, complainants, vs. ATTY.
RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, respondent.Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Legal Research; Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence—
indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law; A retired judge should know that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed
of the latest rulings of the Supreme Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client; In
championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict
standards imposed by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for
clients, lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on a technical ground.—As pointed out by the Investigating
Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in
the latest laws and jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if
one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As a retired judge, respondent should have
known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues
and legal problems confronting a client. In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than
the Constitution, the most basic law of the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s
interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law
and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs. Thus, in championing
the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards
imposed by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the
latter’s cause be dismissed on a technical ground. Ignorance encompasses both substantive and
procedural laws. Same; Same; Same; Pursuant to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline’s Guidelines for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and considering further that this is respondent’s first infraction, the Court
finds _______________ * FIRST DIVISION.
205 VOL. 483, FEBRUARY 27, 2006 205 Williams vs. Enriquez that the penalty of
reprimand as recommended by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, will suffice.—We find too harsh
the recommended penalty of the Investigating Commissioner. It must be stressed that the power to
disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously
affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will
disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty. Pursuant to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline’s
Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and considering further that this is respondent’s first
infraction, we find that the penalty of reprimand as recommended by the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, will suffice.ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral and
Deceitful Acts in Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, and Conduct Unbecoming an Attorney.The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. R E S O
L U T I O NCALLEJO, SR., J.:Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez stands charged with “unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney.” The charges are contained in the Joint Complaint-
Affidavit for Disbarment1 filed by the spouses David W. Williams and Marisa B. Williams.It appears that
respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 134432 pending before the Re-
_______________ 1 Rollo, pp. 1-6. 2 Entitled Francisco Briones Ventolero, et al. v. David W. Williams, et
al. for “Declaration for Inexistence/Revocation of Deed; Declaration of Sole Heir and Sale; Legal
Redemption; Cancellation 206 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Williams vs. Enriquez
gional Trial Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the defendants. According to the
complainant-spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy. A Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) was then issued in her favor, stating that she is “Filipino, married to David W. Williams, an
American citizen.”3 On January 8, 2004, respondent charged her with falsification of public documents
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete City. The complaint was docketed as I.S. No.
2004-34.4The spouses Williams further alleged, thus:“21. That, in malicious violation of the rules
governing the practice of law, Attorney Rudy T. Enriquez cited outdated material in his complaint-
affidavit (Annex “A-1”) and in his comments to counter-affidavit (Annex “A-2”). He then knowingly
applied this stale law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan Williams automatically lost her
Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and was thus prohibited to own land in the
Philippines, thereby making her guilty of falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property in Negros
Oriental.2.2. That in paragraph #1 of her counter-affidavit (Annex “A-2”) Marisa cites Article IV, Section 4
of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that she would not lose her citizenship when she married an
American unless she renounced it in a specific act.2.3 That, in reply, Attorney Enriquez, quotes more
outdated law, declaring that her “act of marrying” her husband was equivalent to renouncing her
citizenship. He also doggedly attempts to show that the 1987 Constitution supports his position, not
Marisa’s (Annex “A-4”).”5_______________ and Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-35430,
Lot No. 2920-D, Psd-07-052555, Reconveyance and Damages.” 3 Rollo, p. 13. 4 Id., at pp. 8-11. 5 Id., at
pp. 2-3.
207 VOL. 483, FEBRUARY 27, 2006 207 Williams vs. Enriquez Complainants pointed
out that the respondent is a retiredjudge, who knows that the false charge (that Marisa Williamsis an
American) “will not prevail in the end.”6In his “Comments by Way of Motion to Dismiss,”7 respondent
enumerated matters which to his mind were evidence of the acts of falsification of complainant Marisa
Williams. He insisted that the complaint for disbarment was a mere tactic to divert attention from the
criminal charges against the complainants, and that the charges against him were bereft of any factual
basis.On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.8 Forthwith, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled
the case for mandatory conference/ hearing. However, only the respondent appeared. The parties were
then directed to submit their verified position papers.In their Position Paper, complainants claimed that
respondent had maliciously and knowingly filed fabricated cases against them and that his acts were
forms of attempted extortion. They also adopted their joint complaint-affidavit by way of incorporation,
along with their other pleadings.For his part, respondent maintained that complainant Marisa Williams
was no longer a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines as a result of her marriage to David Williams.In
her Report and Recommendation dated June 10, 1995, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala ruled
that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and should be suspended for six (6) months.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted the foregoing recommendation in its Resolution No. XVII-
2005-114 dated October 22, 2005, with the modification that respondent be “reprimanded, with a
warn-_______________ 6 Id., at p. 5. 7 Id., at pp. 104-111. 8 Id., at p. 261. 208 208 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED Williams vs. Enriquez ing and advice to study each and every opinion he may
give to his clients.”The Court agrees that respondent is administratively liable for his actuations. As
found by the Investigating Commissioner:There is no evidence shown by respondent that complainant
Marisa Bacatan-Williams has renounced her Filipino citizenship except her Certificate of Marriage, which
does not show that she has automatically acquired her husband’s citizenship upon her marriage to him.
The cases cited by respondent are not applicable in this case as it is clear that they refer to aliens
acquiring lands in the Philippines.The Bar has been integrated for the attainment of the following
objectives: (a) elevate the standards of the legal profession, (b) improve the administration of justice,
and (c) to enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively (In re: Integration of the
Bar of the Philippines, 49 SCRA 22). In line with these objectives of the Integrated Bar, lawyers must
keep themselves abreast of legal developments. To do this, the lawyer must walk with the dynamic
movements of the law and jurisprudence. He must acquaint himself at least with the newly promulgated
laws, the recent decisions of the Supreme Court and of the significant decisions of the Court of Appeals.
There are other executive orders, administrative circulars, regulations and other rules promulgated by
other competent authorities engaged in the administration of justice. The lawyer’s life is one of
continuous and laborious study, otherwise, his skill and knowledge of the law and related disciplines will
lag behind and become obscure due to obsoleteness (Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.)”9As
pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence.10 _______________ 9 Report
and Recommendation dated June 10, 2005, pp. 3-4. 10 CANON 5—A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE 209 VOL. 483, FEBRUARY 27, 2006 209 Williams vs. Enriquez Indeed, when the
law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of
the law.11 As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-
informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client.12 In
this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution,13 the most basic law of
the land.14 Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her ability and
with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments, and participate in
continuing legal education programs.15 Thus, in championing the interest of clients and
_______________ HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF
LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE. 11 Bacar v. De Guzman, Jr., 338 Phil. 41; 271 SCRA 328 (1997), citing Uy v. Dizon-
Capulong, A.M. No. RTJ-91-766, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 87. 12 Arquelada v. Philippine Veterans Bank,
385 Phil. 1200, 1214; 329 SCRA 536, 549 (2000). 13 Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution provides:Sec.
4. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS SHALL RETAIN THEIR CITIZENSHIP, UNLESS BY
THEIR ACT OR OMISSION THEY ARE DEEMED, UNDER THE LAW, TO HAVE RENOUNCED IT. 14 As aptly put
by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in his Dissenting Opinion in the Court’s Resolution dated October
25, 1995 in G.R. No. 119976 (Marcos v. COMELEC), “the Constitution is not intended for lawyers to
quibble over, nor to define legal niceties and articulate nuances about, in the ascertainment of its
import. Its contents and words should be interpreted in the sense understood by the ordinary men and
women who place their lives on the line in its defense and who pin their hopes for a better life in its
fulfillment.” 15 Fajardo v. Dela Torre, A.C. No. 6295, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 125, 131, citing Rabanal v.
Tugalde, A.C. No. 1372, June 27, 2002, 383 SCRA 484 and Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, G.R. No.
142689, October 17, 2002, 391 SCRA 192. 210 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Williams
vs. Enriquez defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the
lawyer’s oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latter’s cause be
dismissed on a technical ground.16 Ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws.17We
find too harsh the recommended penalty of the Investigating Commissioner. It must be stressed that the
power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar
will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.18 Pursuant to the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline’s Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,19 and considering further that this is
respondent’s first infraction, we find that the penalty of reprimand as recommended by the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, will suffice.We likewise note that in their pleadings in this case, the
parties repeatedly invoked their arguments in their pending cases below. Thus, we find it unnecessary to
rule over such _______________ 16 See Intengan v. Court of Appeals, 427 Phil. 293; 377 SCRA 63
(2002), where petitioner, through counsel, filed a “wrong information” for violation of Republic Act No.
1405. In denying the petition, the Court declared that petitioners were left with no remedy in law, as the
filing of said information did not have the effect of tolling the prescriptive period, “for it is the filing of
the complaint or information corresponding to the correct offense which produces that effect.” 17
Fajardo v. Dela Torre, supra, note 15, at p. 132, citing Intengan v. Court of Appeals, supra. 18 Ramos v.
Ngaseo, A.C. No. 6210, December 9, 2004, 445 SCRA 529, 537, citing Montano v. Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, A.C. No. 4215, May 21, 2001, 358 SCRA 1, 9. 19 According to Standard 3.0 of said Guidelines,
the factors to be considered in imposing sanctions include (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s mental
state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (d) the existence of
aggravating and mitigating factors. Under Standard 9.3, the “absence of a prior disciplinary record” is
considered a mitigating factor. 211 VOL. 483, FEBRUARY 27, 2006 211 Williams vs. Enriquez
arguments, which have yet to be determined on the merits in the courts a quo.WHEREFORE, for gross
ignorance of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully study the
opinions he may give to his clients. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.SO ORDERED. Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-
Martinez and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez reprimanded and advised to carefully
study opinions he may give to his clients, with stern warning against repetition of similar act.Notes.—
The appellate court has resolved the question as to who between the parties had a better right to
possess the lot through the erroneous application of an outdated version of Section 48 of the Public
Land Act, and the Office of the Solicitor General likewise erred in assuming that the thirty-year proviso in
the aforementioned section was still good law. (Republic vs. Doldol, 295 SCRA 359 [1998]) The headnote
or syllabi is not the work of the court, nor does it state its decision—it is simply the work of the reporter,
who gives his understanding of the decision, and is prepared for the convenience of the profession in
the examination of the reports. (French Oil Mill Machinery Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 462
[1998]) Considering the American model and origin of the Philippine constitution, it is not surprising that
Filipino jurists and legal scholars define and explain the nature of the Philippine constitution in similar
terms that American constitutional law scholars explain their constitution. (Justice Puno, separate
opinion in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 [2003])——o0o—— Williams vs. Enriquez, 483
SCRA 204, A.C. No. 6353 February 27, 2006
A.C. No. 6056. September 9, 2015.*
FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA, complainant, vs. Attys. JUAN B. MENDOZA and EUSEBIO P.
NAVARRO, JR., respondents.
Attorneys; Disbarment; Suspension; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; The evidence required in

suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence.—The Court has consistently held
that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his
complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of
evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a
decision in favor of the respondent. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against
the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; Words and Phrases; Preponderance of evidence
means that the evidence adduced by one (1) side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than
that of the other.—Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
142142SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza
offered in opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is
preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of
the case; (b) the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and also
their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of
witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
Attorney’s Fees; Contingent Fees; When it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by
undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition, or that the
compensation is clearly excessive, the Court must, and will protect the aggrieved party.—It bears to
stress that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid
and binding but must be laid down in an express contract. The validity of contingent fees depends, in
large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as contingent fee under the circumstances
of the case. Nevertheless, when it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue
influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition, or that the
compensation is clearly excessive, the Court must, and will protect the aggrieved party.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyers engaged to represent a client in a case bear the responsibility of
protecting the latter’s interest with warmth, zeal and utmost diligence.—Lawyers engaged to represent
a client in a case bear the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with warmth, zeal and utmost
diligence. They must constantly keep in mind that their actions or omissions would be binding on the
client.
Same; Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.—Canon 18 of the
CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further
provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
143VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015143Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza
Same; Same; Failure to File Brief and Other Pleadings; The failure of counsel to submit the appeal brief
for his client within the reglementary period constitutes inexcusable negligence, an offense that entails
disciplinary action.—We have held that the failure of counsel to submit the appeal brief for his client
within the reglementary period constitutes inexcusable negligence, an offense that entails disciplinary
action. The filing of a brief within the period set by law is a duty not only to the client, but also to the
court. The failure to file an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason thus deserves sanction.
Attorney-Client Relationship; The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever
present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments
affecting the client’s case.—The lawyer’s duty to keep his client constantly updated on the
developments of his case is crucial in maintaining the client’s confidence. Indeed, the relationship of
lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely
and adequately the client of important developments affecting the client’s case. The lawyer should not
leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client’s interests.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Failure to File Brief and Other Pleadings; In cases involving a lawyer’s failure to
file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court, the Supreme Court (SC) has imposed suspension
from the practice of law for periods ranging from three (3) to six (6) months, and in most serious cases,
even disbarment.—In cases involving a lawyer’s failure to file a brief or other pleading before an
appellate court, this Court has imposed suspension from the practice of law for periods ranging from
three to six months, and in most serious cases, even disbarment.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Fortun, Almodiel & Mendoza for complainant.
The Law Firm of Amurao, Amurao & Associates for respondent Atty. Mendoza.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Juan B. Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza) for alleged
deceitful acts against his client, and Atty. Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr. (Atty. Navarro) for negligence in the
handling of his client’s defense in the collection case filed by Atty. Mendoza.
Factual Antecedents
Eladio Mendoza (Eladio) applied for original registration of two parcels of land (Lot Nos. 3771 and 2489)
situated in Calamba, Laguna before the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)
at Los Baños, Laguna and Land Management Bureau (LMB) in Manila.1 While his application was still
pending, Eladio died leaving all his children as heirs to his estate; among them is herein complainant
Felicisima Mendoza Vda. de Robosa (Felicisima). Eladio’s children pursued the application and executed
a Special Power of Attorney2 (SPA) in favor of Felicisima. Their relative, Atty. Mendoza, prepared and
notarized the said SPA. They also engaged the services of Atty. Mendoza as their counsel in the
proceedings before the CENRO and LMB.
On February 20, 1993, upon the behest of Atty. Mendoza, Felicisima signed a Contract for Service3
prepared by Atty. Mendoza. The said contract stipulated that in the event of a favorable CENRO or LMB
resolution, Felicisima shall convey to Atty. Mendoza one-fifth (1/5) of the lands subject of the
application or one-fifth (1/5) of the proceeds should the same property be sold.
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 91.
2 Id., at pp. 6-7. Dated September 13, 1992 but referred to as September 15, 1992 elsewhere in the
records.
3 Id., at p. 42.
The CENRO and the LMB proceedings resulted in the dismissal of Felicisima and her siblings’ application
for Lot No. 2489 and the partial grant of their application for Lot No. 3771.4 The Bureau of Lands issued
an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering one-third (1/3) or about 8,901 square meters of Lot No.
3771 in the names of Felicisima and her siblings. Subsequently, Felicisima and her siblings sold the land
to Greenfield Corporation (Greenfield) and received the amount of P2,000,000.00 as down payment.
On October 15, 1998, Atty. Mendoza, joined by his wife Filomena S. Mendoza, filed in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Tanauan, Batangas a Complaint5 against Felicisima and her siblings (Civil Case No. T-
1080). Atty. Mendoza claimed that except for the amount of P40,000.00, Felicisima and her siblings
refused to pay his attorney’s fees equivalent to 1/5 of the proceeds of the sale of the land as stipulated
in the Contract for Service.
In their Answer with Counterclaim,6 Felicisima and her siblings denied the “existence and authenticity of
the x x x Contract of Service,” adding that it did not reflect the true intention of the parties as they only
agreed to pay Atty. Mendoza P1,500.00 per appearance and up to P1,500.00 for gasoline expenses. They
also asserted that, based on quantum meruit, Atty. Mendoza is not entitled to the claimed attorney’s
fees because they lost in one case and he failed to accomplish the titling of the land awarded to them,
which would have enhanced the value of the property.
Felicisima and her siblings hired the services of Atty. Navarro as their counsel in Civil Case No. T-1080.
On March 29, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Atty. Mendoza and against Felicisima and
her siblings. The RTC ruled that Felicisima failed to substantiate her claim
_______________
4 Id., at p. 1.
5 Id., at pp. 45-53.
6 Id., at pp. 54-57.
that she did not enter into a contingency contract for legal services with Atty. Mendoza, and ordered
Felicisima to pay Atty. Mendoza P1,258,000.00 (for the land sold at P7,120,800.00) representing
attorney’s fees as well as the total cost of suit.7
Atty. Navarro then filed a Notice of Appeal8 on behalf of Felicisima. However, Atty. Mendoza moved for
an execution pending appeal with the RTC. Since no opposition was filed by Felicisima and her siblings,
the RTC granted the said motion and issued a writ of execution, which resulted in the levy and eventual
transfer of Felicisima’s properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-433859 and T-433860 in
favor of Atty. Mendoza as the highest bidder in the execution sale.9
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered Felicisima to file an appellant’s brief but Atty. Navarro
failed to file the same within the period granted by the CA. Consequently, the CA dismissed Felicisima’s
appeal for noncompliance with Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.10
On June 3, 2003, Felicisima filed a complaint-affidavit for disbarment before this Court against Atty.
Mendoza for allegedly deceiving her into signing the Contract for Service by taking advantage of her
illiteracy, and against Atty. Navarro for dereliction of duty in handling her case before the CA causing her
properties to be levied and sold at public auction.11
Felicisima alleges that Atty. Mendoza made her sign a document at her house without the presence of
her siblings. Said document (Contract for Service) was written in English which she does not understand.
She claims that Atty. Mendoza told her the document will shield her from her siblings’
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 138-140.
8 Id., at p. 141.
9 Id., at pp. 61-69.
10 Id., at pp. 29-30.
11 Id., at pp. 1-4.
possible future claims on the property because she alone is entitled to the property as her siblings did
not help her in processing the application for original registration. She was not given a copy of the said
document and she discovered only during the trial that Atty. Mendoza anchors his claim over 1/5 of
proceeds from the sale of the land awarded by the CENRO and LMB on the same document she had
signed.12
As to Atty. Navarro, Felicisima claims that her case before the CA was neglected despite repeated
follow-ups on her part. She also points out that Atty. Navarro abandoned her case before the RTC when
the latter failed to file an opposition to Atty. Mendoza’s motion for execution pending appeal, which
resulted in the loss of her properties.13
In his Comment,14 Atty. Mendoza avers that he has been a lawyer since 1954 and retired sometime in
1983 due to partial disability. He went back to practicing his profession in 1996 on a selective basis due
to his disability but completely stopped a year after. Being 82 years of age at the time of filing his
comment, Atty. Mendoza admits that he is now totally disabled, cannot walk on his own, cannot even
write and sign his name, and can only move about with the help of his family for he has been suffering
from a severe case of “acute gouty arthritic attack” which causes extreme difficulty in moving virtually
all his joints. He points out that he had previously handled pro bono a concubinage case filed by
Felicisima against her husband, having yielded to her repeated pleas as she was then financially hard-up
and psychologically distraught. For the application with the CENRO and LMB, he agreed to be paid for
his legal services on a contingent basis, which contract was subsequently found by the RTC to be valid.
When it was time to collect his attorney’s fees, Felicisima and her siblings refused to pay him without
any justi-
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 1-2.
13 Id., at pp. 2-3.
14 Id., at pp. 32-40.
fiable reason and even threatened to shoot him if he continued to press for his compensation. This left
Atty. Mendoza with no other recourse but to avail of the judicial process to enforce his claim.
Replying to the comment of Atty. Mendoza, Felicisima maintains that she did not understand the
contents of the Contract for Service and if it was truly their agreement (contingent basis) they would not
have given money to Atty. Mendoza amounting to P66,000.00. In fact, she points out that Atty.
Mendoza failed to recover one of the lands applied for and to have the land awarded to them titled
because he became ill. Further, she denies the allegation that she and her siblings threatened to shoot
Atty. Mendoza for how could they do it to a lawyer who will certainly have them jailed. Besides, he
never mentioned such incident during the hearing of the case.
On his part, Atty. Navarro asserts that he did his best to win Felicisima’s case although he was
unsuccessful. He explains that even before handling Felicisima’s case, he had been saddled by many
cases involving politicians and sympathizers, having previously served as councilor in the Municipality of
Sto. Tomas, Batangas for two consecutive terms. He thus emphasized to Felicisima that in order to
“keep the case alive,” he could file the Notice of Appeal in her behalf, and instructed her to look for
another lawyer who has the time to attend to her case and that she would return to him only when she
failed to get one. However, Atty. Navarro admits that since he was too preoccupied with so many cases
in the local courts, he had altogether forgotten about Felicisima’s case, not having seen her again as per
their agreement.
Atty. Navarro avers that after a long time Felicisima suddenly showed up at his office complaining why
there was no appellant’s brief filed on her behalf at the CA. He claims that Felicisima blamed her and
even accused him of conniving with Atty. Mendoza. Felicisima would not accept his explanation and she
obviously failed to understand his earlier in-
struction as he had filed the Notice of Appeal precisely to give her enough time to secure the services of
a new lawyer having told her that he was quite busy with his other cases. He therefore pleads for mercy
and compassion if he had somehow committed some lapses considering that this is the first time he was
charged administratively in his almost 39 years of law practice and that he is too willing to take
complainant’s cause if not for such apparent miscommunication between a lawyer and his client.15
On December 7, 2005, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.16
On November 6, 2006, Felicisima filed a position paper17 reiterating that Atty. Mendoza clearly abused
the trust and confidence she reposed in him, depriving her of her material possessions by filing suit to
enforce the Contract for Service. She asserted that they could not have entered into a contract with
Atty. Mendoza for the conveyance of a portion of the land to be awarded by the Bureau of Lands as his
attorney’s fees because they already agreed to pay his fee per hearing plus transportation expenses and
the sum of P40,000.00. She contended that Atty. Mendoza should be held liable for deceit and
misrepresentation for tricking her to sign, to her detriment, a document that she did not understand.
As to Atty. Navarro, Felicisima maintained that he abandoned his responsibility to monitor and keep her
updated of the status of her case before the CA. She also alleges that Atty. Navarro made it appear to
her that he had already filed the appellant’s brief when, in fact, there was no such undertaking. She thus
prayed that Atty. Navarro be held liable for negligence in the conduct and manner of handling her case
before the CA.
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 91-96 (Comment of Atty. Navarro).
16 Id., at p. 100.
17 Id., at pp. 176-189.

IBP’s Report and Recommendation
After two postponements, the mandatory conference was finally held on September 25, 2006 where all
parties appeared except for Atty. Mendoza. Upon termination of the hearing, the parties were required
to file their position papers but only Felicisima complied.
On March 6, 2007, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
submitted her Report and Recommendation18 finding Atty. Mendoza guilty of taking advantage of
Felicisima’s ignorance just to have the Contract for Service signed. She held that Atty. Mendoza violated
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him, as well as Rule 20.04, Canon 20
which exhorts lawyers to avoid controversies with clients concerning matters of compensation and to
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.19
As to Atty. Navarro, the Investigating Commissioner held that his participation in politics affected his law
practice and caused him to forget about Felicisima’s case. Having failed to file the appellant’s brief as
ordered by the CA, Atty. Navarro even filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance at a very late stage,
leaving no time for Felicisima to secure the services of another lawyer. His infraction caused the eviction
of Felicisima and her children from their residence by virtue of the writ of execution and public auction
of her real properties. The Investigating Commissioner further said that Atty. Navarro’s acts showed lack
of diligence in violation of Canon 18 of the CPR and his Lawyer’s Oath.20
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 251-260.
19 Id., at pp. 257-258.
20 Id., at pp. 258-259.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended that both Atty. Mendoza and Atty. Navarro be
suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law.21
On September 19, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution22 modifying the Investigating
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation by lowering the period of suspension from two (2) years
to six (6) months.
Atty. Navarro filed a motion for reconsideration23 contending that the IBP Board of Governors failed to
consider that after the filing of the Notice of Appeal, there was no more lawyer-client relationship
between him and Felicisima. Insisting that there was a miscommunication between him and Felicisima
regarding his instruction that she should engage the services of another lawyer after the filing of the
Notice of Appeal, he stressed that she only later found it difficult to scout for a new lawyer because she
was being charged exorbitant acceptance fees. Hence, Felicisima should be held equally negligent in not
hiring the services of another lawyer despite a clear understanding to this effect. He further cites the
lack of communication between him and Felicisima, which resulted in the late filing of the Notice of
Withdrawal that she volunteered to file a long time ago.
In her comment to Atty. Navarro’s motion for reconsideration, Felicisima reiterated that Atty. Navarro
should be held liable for negligence in failing to update her of the status of the case and admitting such
oversight. She claims that despite several demands, Atty. Navarro ignored them and made himself
scarce.24
On February 28, 2012, the IBP-CBD forwarded the case to this Court for proper disposition pursuant to
Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. Among the records transmitted
_______________
21 Id., at pp. 259-260.
22 Id., at pp. 249-250.
23 Id., at pp. 261-262.

24 Id., at pp. 263-266.
was the Resolution dated January 15, 2012 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty.
Navarro.25
The Court’s Ruling
The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the
lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to
prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings
is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise
doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.26 For the Court to exercise its disciplinary
powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof.27
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or
has greater weight than that of the other.28 It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.29 Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in
determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following:
(a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to
which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’ interest or
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 280-281.

26 Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., 678 Phil. 588, 601; 662 SCRA 361, 373 (2011).
27 Alitagtag v. Garcia, 451 Phil. 420, 423; 403 SCRA 335, 337 (2003).
28 Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., supra at p. 601; p. 372, citing Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer,
Inc., 494 Phil. 603, 613; 454 SCRA 653, 664-665 (2005); Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, 568 Phil.
188, 197; 544 SCRA 206, 216 (2008).
29 Id., citing Republic v. Bautista, 559 Phil. 360, 371; 532 SCRA 598, 612 (2007).
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial;
and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the
greater number.
After a thorough review of the evidence and pleadings submitted by the parties, we hold that Felicisima
was able to prove her charges against Atty. Navarro but not Atty. Mendoza.
Contract for Service with
Atty. Mendoza a contract
for contingent fees
The Contract for Service dated February 20, 1993 reads:
That the client hereby employs the Attorney as their counsel for the titling and recovery of their two
parcels of land situated at Barangay Maunong, Calamba, Laguna, [Lot] No. 2489 with an area of
approximately 21,784 Square Meters and [L]ot No. 3771 with an area of more or less 26,703 and in
consideration of the services of the attorney, the client agrees to pay the following:
1. For the prosecution of said proceedings titling and recovery of the said parcels of land and hearing
at the Land Management Bureau, Manila, and at the Office of the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office at Los Baños, Laguna the client will give the Attorney one-fifth (1/5[)] of the said two
parcels of land or one-fifth (1/5[)] of the selling price of the said properties if sold.
Said Attorney hereby accepts said employment on said terms and conditions and to do his best care,
skill and ability, and at all times to protect the rights and interest of said client.
2. That the expenses of the proceedings, and such others as filing fees, expenses of publication, costs
legally taxable and all others shall be for the account of the client.30
_______________
30 Rollo, p. 42.
We cannot sustain the finding of the IBP that Atty. Mendoza misled Felicisima into signing the above
contract which supposedly was intended to protect her from the claims of her siblings who did not
spend for the application with the CENRO and LMB. Such finding was based solely on the statements of
Felicisima in her affidavit-complaint. While Felicisima made a reference to her testimony before the RTC,
she did not attach the transcript of stenographic notes of the said testimony detailing the circumstances
of her signing the Contract for Service. Neither is the receipt by Atty. Mendoza of the sum of P40,000.00
after Felicisima and her siblings sold the land, by itself an indication of fraud and deceit in the execution
of the Contract for Service.
Upon the other hand, Atty. Mendoza presented the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. T-1080 dated March
29, 2000, the relevant portions of which state:
It is not disputed that Atty. Mendoza was paid P1,000.00 for every appearance and he was also given
P300.00 for hiring a vehicle and driver for each scheduled hearing. He also received P40,000.00 from
Felicisima Mendoza when defendants’ one-third portion of Lot No. 3771 was sold.
Atty. Mendoza filed the instant case to collect one-fifth of the sale price of defendants’ land which was
sold for P7,120,800.00 or the amount of P1,424,000.00 minus the amount of P40,000.00 he received, or
the amount of P1,384,000.00.
During her testimony, Felicisima Mendoza admitted the authenticity of the Special Power of Attorney
whereby her brothers and sisters authorized her to secure the services of the plaintiff Juan Mendoza
adding that it was in writing, in English and was explained to her before she signed it; that on the basis
of the authority given her by her brothers and sisters she engaged the services of Atty. Mendoza; that
the signature in the document, entitled Contract of Service, is that of her name which she signed in “his
house.”
On the basis of the evidence, the Court finds no ground to support Felicisima’s claim that she did not
enter into any written agreement with the plaintiff, Juan Mendoza, for the latter to render legal services
and the corresponding compensation therefor as set forth in the Contract of Service. However, the
Court finds that the amounts received by the plaintiff Juan Mendoza from defendant Felicisima
Mendoza during the course of his legal services for the twenty hearings in the amount of P1,300.00 per
hearing or a total of P26,000.00 should also be deducted from his claim of P1,384,000.00 leaving an
unpaid balance of P1,258,000.00 due plaintiff Juan Mendoza for legal services rendered the
defendants.31
Given the above finding of the RTC that Felicisima in fact entered into a contract for legal services with
Atty. Mendoza, thus debunking her defense in her Answer denying the existence and authenticity of the
said document, it appears that Felicisima raised the issue of voluntariness of her signing the Contract for
Service only during the hearing when she supposedly testified that, having reached only Grade IV and
trusting completely her lawyer cousin, Atty. Mendoza who told her that the document will protect her
from the claims of her siblings, she actually signed the Contract for Service.32 The RTC, however, found
the evidence adduced by Felicisima as insufficient to defeat Atty. Mendoza’s claim for attorney’s fees.
Said judgment had attained finality and even pending appeal was already executed on motion by Atty.
Mendoza.
It bears to stress that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally
recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract.33 The
_______________
31 Id., at p. 140.
32 Id., at p. 179.
33 Rayos v. Hernandez, 544 Phil. 447, 460; 515 SCRA 517, 528 (2007), citing Law Firm of Raymundo A.
Armovit v. Court of Appeals, 279 Phil. 18, 26; 202 SCRA 16, 24 (1991) and Corpus v. Court of Appeals,
187 Phil. 289, 303-304; 98 SCRA 424, 441 (1980).
validity of contingent fees depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as
contingent fee under the circumstances of the case.34 Nevertheless, when it is shown that a contract
for a contingent fee was obtained by undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any
fraud or imposition, or that the compensation is clearly excessive, the Court must, and will protect the
aggrieved party.35
Apart from the allegations in her affidavit-complaint, Felicisima failed to establish by clear and
satisfactory proof of the deception allegedly committed by Atty. Mendoza when she agreed in writing
for the latter’s contingent fees. Fraud and irregularity in the execution of their contingency fee contract
cannot be deduced from the fact alone that Atty. Mendoza filed suit to enforce their contract.
Atty. Navarro’s Gross Negligence
With respect to Atty. Navarro, the facts on record clearly established his failure to live up to the
standards of diligence and competence of the legal profession.
Lawyers engaged to represent a client in a case bear the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest
with warmth, zeal and utmost diligence.36 They must constantly keep in mind that their actions or
omissions would be binding on the client.37
_______________
34 Malonso v. Principe, 488 Phil. 1, 21; 447 SCRA 1, 19 (2004), citing Amalgamated Laborers’
Association v. CIR, 131 Phil. 374, 383; 22 SCRA 1266, 1274 (1968).
35 Id., citing Tanhueco v. De Dumo, 254 Phil. 704, 713; 172 SCRA 760, 768 (1989).
36 Credito v. Sabio, 510 Phil. 92, 97; 473 SCRA 301, 307 (2005), citing Macarilay v. Serina, 497 Phil. 348;
458 SCRA 12 (2005); Reyes v. Vitan, 496 Phil. 1, 4-5; 456 SCRA 87, 91 (2005); and Amaya v. Tecson, 491
Phil. 111, 117; 450 SCRA 510, 516 (2005).
37 Id., citing Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr., 504 Phil. 179, 185; 466 SCRA 618, 623 (2005); Torres v. Orden, 386
Phil. 216, 220; 330 SCRA 1, 5
In this case, Atty. Navarro agreed to represent Felicisima and her siblings in Civil Case No. T-1080 and as
their counsel he filed the Answer with Counterclaim. He likewise attended the hearings of the case until
the RTC rendered an adverse judgment. However, after filing the Notice of Appeal, nothing was heard of
again from him. He did not file any opposition when Atty. Mendoza moved for execution pending
appeal, which resulted in the sale of Felicisima’s properties at public auction and eventual eviction of
Felicisima and her children from the said premises. Worse, he failed to file an appellant’s brief despite
receipt of the order from the CA directing him to do so within the period specified therein, and to file a
motion for reconsideration when the appeal was dismissed due to non-filing of such brief. His motion
for extension of time to submit an appellant’s brief was filed 93 days late and was thus denied by the
CA. Barely a week after, he filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance bearing the conformity of his
clients which was granted. It is evident from the foregoing that Atty. Navarro failed to inform Felicisima
of the status of the case so that the latter was surprised upon being served the eviction order of the
court and eventual dismissal by the CA of their appeal.
Canon 18 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule
18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Thus:
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a 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,
_______________
(2000); and Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88396, July 4, 1990, 187 SCRA 200,
208.
care and devotion. Elsewise 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 of his 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.38
Atty. Navarro’s asseveration that he had instructed Felicisima to look for another lawyer and given them
the Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance for them to file in the CA, fails to convince. If it is true that he
did not agree to continue being Felicisima’s counsel before the CA, he should have immediately filed the
Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance himself after filing the Notice of Appeal. Despite receipt of the
order to file appellant’s brief from the CA, he did not inform Felicisima about it nor did he inquire from
the latter whether they already secured the services of a new counsel. That such withdrawal was filed
long after the expiration of the period to file appellant’s brief and the denial by the CA of the motion for
extension also belatedly filed by him, clearly indicate that he never updated Felicisima on the status of
their appeal, such information being crucial after Atty. Mendoza succeeded in having the judgment
executed pending appeal.
_______________
38 Ramos v. Jacoba, 418 Phil. 346, 351; 366 SCRA 91, 94-95 (2001), cited in Fajardo v. Dela Torre, 471
Phil. 21, 28-29; 427 SCRA 125, 132 (2004).

Atty. Navarro, in fact, admitted that he forgot about Felicisima’s case due to his political activities.
Despite having received notices from the CA, he allowed the period of filing the appellant’s brief to lapse
and failed to file a motion for extension before such period expired. He did file a motion for extension
but only three months later and when such motion was denied, he finally moved to withdraw from the
case. There being no appellant’s brief filed, the CA granted Atty. Mendoza’s motion to dismiss the
appeal. Under the circumstances, Atty. Navarro was grossly negligent in his duties, resulting in great
prejudice to Felicisima who lost her properties to satisfy the judgment in favor of Atty. Mendoza.
We have held that the failure of counsel to submit the appeal brief for his client within the reglementary
period constitutes inexcusable negligence,39 an offense that entails disciplinary action.40 The filing of a
brief within the period set by law is a duty not only to the client, but also to the court.41 The failure to
file an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason thus deserves sanction.42
Atty. Navarro’s negligent handling of Felicisima’s case was exacerbated by his failure to inform her of the
status of her case. There was no mention in his pleadings of any attempt on his part to contact
Felicisima at the crucial stages when Atty. Mendoza moved for execution pending appeal and the
_______________
39 Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014, 718 SCRA 450, 458; Perla Compania de Seguros,
Inc. v. Saquilabon, 337 Phil. 555, 558; 271 SCRA 109, 112 (1997); Ford v. Daitol, 320 Phil. 53, 58-59; 250
SCRA 7, 12 (1995); In Re: Atty. Santiago F. Marcos, 240 Phil. 769, 771-772; 156 SCRA 844, 847 (1987);
and People v. Villar, Jr., No. L-34092, July 29, 1972, 46 SCRA 107.
40 People v. Cawili, 145 Phil. 605, 608; 34 SCRA 728, 730 (1970), cited in Edquibal v. Ferrer, Jr., 491 Phil.
1, 7; 450 SCRA 406, 412 (2005).
41 Blaza v. Court of Appeals, 245 Phil. 408, 413; 162 SCRA 461, 465 (1988).
42 Abay v. Montesino, 462 Phil. 496, 500; 417 SCRA 77, 78 (2003).
CA sent a directive for the filing of the appellant’s brief. If indeed, he had already instructed Felicisima to
look for another lawyer, he should have apprised her of these developments and explained to her the
urgency of filing the notice of withdrawal of appearance and entry of appearance of a new counsel she
may have already engaged.
Atty. Navarro’s failure to communicate vital information to his client violated Rule 18.04 which provides:
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.
The lawyer’s duty to keep his client constantly updated on the developments of his case is crucial in
maintaining the client’s confidence. Indeed, the relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence,
there is ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important
developments affecting the client’s case. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the
lawyer is defending the client’s interests.43
In cases involving a lawyer’s failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court, this Court
has imposed suspension from the practice of law for periods ranging from three to six months, and in
most serious cases, even disbarment.44
We find the recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors to suspend Atty. Navarro from the practice
of law for six months appropriate under the circumstances. Considering that this is his first
administrative offense, such penalty, and not disbarment as prayed for by complainant, serves the pur-
_______________
43 Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619, 629; 425 SCRA 577, 584 (2004), citing Tolentino v. Mangapit, 209
Phil. 607, 611; 124 SCRA 741, 745 (1983) and Alcala v. De Vera, 155 Phil. 33, 41; 56 SCRA 30, 37 (1974).
44 Edquibal v. Ferrer, Jr., supra note 40 at p. 8; p. 413.
pose of protecting the interest of the public and the legal profession. For this Court will exercise its
power to disbar only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.45
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr. GUILTY of violation of Rule 18.03
and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this Decision, with warning that a repetition of the same
or similar violation shall be dealt with more severely. The charges against Atty. Juan B. Mendoza are
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez** and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Respondent Atty. Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr. suspended from practice of law for six (6) months for violation
of Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Code of Professional Responsibility, with warning against repetition of
similar violation. Charges against Atty. Juan B. Mendoza dismissed.
Note.—A contract for a contingent fees is an agreement in writing by which the fees, usually a fixed
percentage of what may be recovered in the action, are made to depend upon the success in the effort
to enforce or defend a supposed right — contingent fees depend upon an express contract, without
which the attorney can only recover on the basis of quantum meruit; Quantum meruit — literally
meaning as much as he deserves — is used as basis for determining an attorney’s
_______________
45 Mejares v. Romana, supra note 43 at p. 633; p. 587, citing Punla v. Soriano, 209 Phil. 290, 293; 124
SCRA 353, 356 (1983).
** Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No.
2084 dated June 29, 2015.

professional fees in the absence of an express agreement; The recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis
of quantum meruit is a device that prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of
the legal services of counsel without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the
attorney himself. (National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA 60 [2011])
——o0o—— Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza, 770 SCRA 141, A.C. No. 6056 September 9, 2015

Leg Pro

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Leg Pro

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A.C. No. 7902. September 30, 2008.*TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, complainant, vs. ATTY. GODWIN R.

VALDEZ, respondent.Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an

Attorneys; Disbarment; Suspension; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; The evidence required in

142142SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

143VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015143Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Fortun, Almodiel & Mendoza for complainant.

144144SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

145VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015145Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

5 Id., at pp. 45-53.

6 Id., at pp. 54-57.

146146SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

7 Id., at pp. 138-140.

9 Id., at pp. 61-69.

10 Id., at pp. 29-30.

11 Id., at pp. 1-4.

147VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015147Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

12 Id., at pp. 1-2.

13 Id., at pp. 2-3.

14 Id., at pp. 32-40.

148148SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

149VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015149Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

15 Id., at pp. 91-96 (Comment of Atty. Navarro).

17 Id., at pp. 176-189.

IBP’s Report and Recommendation

18 Id., at pp. 251-260.

19 Id., at pp. 257-258.

20 Id., at pp. 258-259.

21 Id., at pp. 259-260.

22 Id., at pp. 249-250.

23 Id., at pp. 261-262.

152152SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

The Court’s Ruling

25 Id., at pp. 280-281.

153VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015153Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

Contract for Service with

Atty. Mendoza a contract

for contingent fees

The Contract for Service dated February 20, 1993 reads:

154154SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

155VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015155Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

156156SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

Atty. Navarro’s Gross Negligence

157VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015157Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

159VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015159Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

160160SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

44 Edquibal v. Ferrer, Jr., supra note 40 at p. 8; p. 413.

161VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015161Mendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez** and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

162162SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMendoza Vda. de Robosa vs. Mendoza

Вам также может понравиться