Negligent lawyer

What are the liabilities of a lawyer who fails to do anything to protect his client’s rights after receiving his acceptance fee? Will his liability be erased if the client is equally at fault for lack of communication? These are the questions resolved in this case of Atty. RM.

After being introduced by Delia, a mutual acquaintance, Atty. RM was hired by his compañero Atty. ES in behalf of the latter’s relatives to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land in their province. Atty. RM accepted the task to be completed within eight months for a consideration of P80,000. He received P50,000 as initial payment of the acceptance fee with the balance of P30,000 to be paid when Atty. ES received the title to the property.

Six months after he paid the initial fee, Atty. ES tried to follow up on the status of the case through phone calls and text messages to Atty. RM. But Atty. RM never replied. Atty. ES even requested Delia to get in touch with Atty. RM. Delia was able to contact him several times but she received no clear cut answers from Atty. RM. The latter just informed her that everything was “on process”.

After the lapse of almost one year, Atty. RM has yet not filed the petition for the titling of the property. Hence Atty. ES already filed a complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. RM for neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him, for failure to account for all money collected and for failure to inform his client on the status of the case which are respectively in violation of Rule 18.03, 16.01 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In answer, Atty.RM claimed that the delay in the filing of the petition for the titling of the property was caused by his client’s failure to communicate. He explained that he had no intention of reneging on his obligation as he had already prepared the draft but could not file it for lack of documentary evidence that his client should have furnished him. He also denied that Atty. ES tried to communicate with him.

But the investigating commissioner of the IBP and the Board of Governors found Atty. RM liable based on the evidence submitted. They said that Atty. RM failed to duly present any reasonable excuse for the non filing of the petition despite the lapse of about a year from the time his services were engaged. So they recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 3 months and ordered to return the P50,000. Was the IBP correct?

Yes, except as to the penalty. The circumstance that the client was also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for his negligence in handling a case. A lawyer cannot shift the blame to his client for failing to follow-up on his case because it is the lawyer’s duty to inform the client of the status of the case. Even if the client has been equally at fault for lack of communication, the main responsibility remains with the lawyer to inquire and know the best means to acquire the needed information. Once an engagement for legal services has been accepted, the lawyer bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence.

The monetary consideration and the fixed period of performance should have made it more imperative for Atty. RM to promptly take action and initiate communication with his clients. He should have at least undertaken the initial delivery of his part of the engagement.

If Atty. RM truly wanted to file the petition he could have acquired the necessary information from Atty. ES to enable him to file it even when the IBP investigation was already on-going. These omissions unequivocally point to Atty. RM’s lack of due care that warrants disciplinary action pursuant to Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. RM is also guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of said Code which requires all lawyer’s to account for all the money received from the client. He did not immediately account for and promptly return the money he received from Atty. ES after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time of the engagement.

Hence Atty. RM should be suspended for six months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same acts will be dealt with more severely. He should also return the P50,000 with 12% interest until the full amount is returned (Solidon vs. Macalalad, A.C. 8158, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 472).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]