[ A.C. No. 12063,
January 08, 2019 ]
EVERDINA C. ANGELES,
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. WILFREDO B. LINA-AC, RESPONDENT
PONENTE: Leonen
FACTS:
Everdina C. Angeles (Angeles) filed
an Administrative Complaint against Atty. Wilfredo B. Lina-ac (Atty. Lina-ac)
for his negligence in performing his duties as legal counsel, and for
committing a fraudulent act to cover up his negligence.
Sometime in February 2010, Angeles
engaged the services of Atty. Lina-ac to file a petition for the nullity of her
marriage with her husband. She paid him his professional fee in several
tranches, for a total of P50,000.00, which was paid by May 2010. Angeles repeatedly followed up with Atty. Lina-ac on
the status of her case.
In October 2010,he sent her a copy
of a Complaint, which bore the "received" stamp of the Regional
Trial Court Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon. The complaint was supposedly
docketed as Civil Case No. 10-3-
Angeles brought up an error in the Complaint
with Atty. Lina-ac, who promised to rectify it. Months passed, yet her counsel
failed to provide her a copy of the corrected Complaint, despite her repeated
follow-ups. Fed up with his excuses, Angeles verbally asked Atty. Lina-ac in
the second week of May 2011 to return the P50,000.00 she paid him.
On May 25, 2011, Angeles went to the
Regional Trial Court to inquire about her case status, and was shocked to
discover that there was no pending petition for the nullity of her marriage,
and that the stamp used in the Complaint provided by Atty. Lina-ac was not official.
Angeles confronted Atty. Lina-ac about this, to which he admitted that he never
filed her Complaint. He also promised to return the money she paid him.
Despite their agreement to sever
their attorney-client relationship, Atty. Lina-ac on June 16, 2011 filed a
Complaint before the Regional Trial Court for the nullity of Angeles'
marriage. In its June 27, 2011 the Regional Trial Court directed Angeles
to file the necessary motion to serve summons on her husband through
publication.
On June 29, 2011, Angeles sent Atty. Lina-ac a
Demand Letter for the immediate return of'P110,000.00, representing all
the money she paid him for the two (2) cases he was handling. She expressed her
dismay at how he swindled her and deliberately went against their agreement by
filing the second Complaint without her consent. She then informed him that she
would file the appropriate criminal and administrative cases against him.
On July 6, 2011, Atty. Lina-ac sent Angeles a
copy of the June 27,2011 Order, and asked her to submit an affidavit with
information on her husband's whereabouts. He then filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to file the motion for service of summons through
publication, which the Regional Trial Court granted in its July 22, 2011 Order.
Angeles did not provide Atty. Lina-ac the
requested affidavit; yet, on August 4, 2011, Atty. Lina-ac still filed a Motion
with Leave of Court for Service of Summons through Publication. The Regional
Trial Court denied the Motion for failure to attach Angeles' affidavit. Atty.
Lina-ac then provided Angeles a copy of it.
On May 17, 2012, Angeles filed before the
Provincial Prosecutor a Complaint for estafa against Atty. Lina-ac, and
forwarded the same Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Misamis
Oriental Chapter. On May 30, 2012,
Angeles sent Atty. Lina-ac another Demand Letter for the return of her
money, and threatened to file a disbarment proceeding against him.
On July 9, 2012, Atty. Lina-ac filed his
Comment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Misamis Oriental
Chapter. He denied defrauding Angeles and claimed that he did not know who
placed the fake stamp on the first Complaint. He further claimed that the first
Complaint was just a draft, and that Angeles' sister-in-law requested for copy
of it. Atty. Lina-ac also pointed out
that he filed a petition for the nullity of Angeles' marriage, and that the
petition was dismissed because Angeles failed to provide the necessary
affidavit for the summons on her husband to be served through publication.
On April 26, 2013, the Investigating
Commissioner directed both parties to attend a mandatory conference on July 25,
2013 at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Building in Pasig
City. Atty. Lina-ac, who was 72 years old, moved for the postponement of
the mandatory conference because his condition of Type 2 Diabetes made it
difficult for him to travel from Bukidnon to Pasig City.The Investigating
Commissioner canceled the scheduled mandatory conference and reset it
to August 29,2013. Atty. Lina-ac moved to transfer the venue of the
mandatory conference to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Misamis
Oriental/Cagayan De Oro chapter because of his ailment. The mandatory conference was reset one last time. When
both parties still failed to appear, the Investigating Commissioner terminated
the mandatory conference, denied Atty. Lina-ac's motions to transfer venue, and
directed the parties to submit their position papers.
IBP
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 29, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that Atty.
Lina-ac be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year for his
negligence and deceitful conduct.
In its September 27, 2014 Resolution, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors modified the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation by
increasing the penalty of suspension to two (2) years and ordering Atty.
Lina-ac to return P50,000.00 to Angeles.
On April 29 2015, Atty. Lina-ac
moved for reconsideration of the
Resolution against him.
In its June 17, 2017 Resolution, the Board of
Governors partially granted Atty.
Lina-ac's Motion and downgraded the penalty of suspension to reprimand, in
recognition of his belated filing of the petition for annulment.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Lina-ac violated any Ethical Rules?
RULING:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Wilfreda B. Lina-ac is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for two (2) years. He is ORDERED to return
to complainant Everdina C. Angeles the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
date of promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid.[53] He is likewise DIRECTED to submit to
this Court proof of payment of the amount within ten (10) days from payment.
RATIO:
Upon pursuing his client's cause,
respondent Atty. Lina-ac became duty bound to protect complainant Angeles'
interests. The degree of service expected of him as an advocate was his
"entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning
and ability[.]"The high
degree of service required of a lawyer is brought about by the lawyer's
fiduciary duty toward the client, with their relationship marked "with
utmost trust and confidence."
The Code of Professional Responsibility likewise imposes an exacting
standard and requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence, fidelity,
and diligence:
CANON 17 -A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 -A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
Respondent fell short of the standard
required of him as complainant's legal counsel when he failed to serve her with
competence and diligence.
Worse, even after their
attorney-client relationship was severed, respondent filed a second Complaint
in a blatant attempt to cover up his earlier negligence and thwart
complainant's efforts to recover the money she paid him. Respondent's repeated
duplicity toward complainant reflects his lack of integrity, and is a clear
violation of the oath he took before becoming a lawyer.
Very clearly, respondent violated
his oath as he was not forthright and honest in his dealings with the
complainant. He engaged in deceitful conduct by presenting a bogus complaint
allegedly bearing the stamp ofthe court. Consequently, he must bear the
consequence of his own wrongdoing.
Court takes judicial notice that
respondent will be about 78 years old by the time this Resolution is
promulgated. In light of his advanced age, this Court deems it proper to temper
justice with mercy and mete out a penalty of two (2) years of suspension
instead of the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Ours is a court oflaw, but it is
our humane compassion that strengthens us as an institution and cloaks us
"with a mantle of respect and legitimacy."
Comments
Post a Comment