A.C. No. 5713. June 10, 2002.DOMINADOR P. BURBE, complainant, vs. Atty. ALBERTO C.
MAGULTA, respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Burbe was introduced to Atty. Alberto C.
Magulta, sometime in September, 1998, in his office at the Respicio, Magulta
and Adan Law Offices. Atty. Magulta agreed to legally represent him in a money
claim and possible civil case against certain parties for breach of contract.
As a consequence, Atty. Magulta prepared a demand letter and
some other legal papers for him. Having failed to settle the dispute, Atty.
Magulta suggested that Burbe file the necessary complaint, the filing fee of
which amounts to P25,000.00. Burbe deposited the amount on Jan. 4, 1999 to
Atty. Magulta.
One week later, Burbe was informed by Atty. Magulta that the
complaint had already been filed in court and that he should receive notice of
its progress. Months passed by but no such notice from the court or from Atty.
Magulta arrived. So Burbe frequented Atty. Magulta’s office to inquire and was
repeatedly told to just wait.
Atty. Magulta even brought the complainant to the Hall of
Justice Building at Ecoland, Davao City. Atty. Magulta left complainant at the
Office of the City Prosecutor at the ground floor of the building and told to him
wait while he personally follows up the processes with the Clerk of Court;
whereupon, within the hour, he came back and told Burbe that the Clerk of Court
was absent on that day.
Sensing that he was being given the run-around by Atty.
Magulta, Burbe decided to go to the Office of the Clerk of Court and personally
verify the progress of his case but he was told that there was no record at all
of a case filed by Atty. Magulta on his behalf.
The following day, Burbe confronted Atty. Alberto Magulta,
who continued to lie with the excuse that the delay was being caused by the
court personnel, and only when shown the certification did he admit that he has
not at all filed the complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee
for his own purpose.
Atty. Magulta vehemently denied the allegations. He alleged
that Burbe was introduced to him as a kumpadre of one of his law partners; that
after their meeting, complainant requested him to draft a demand letter against
Regwill Industries, Inc.—a service for which the former never paid.
Aside from attending to the Regwill case which had required
a three-hour meeting, respondent drafted a complaint (which was only for the
purpose of compelling the owner to settle the case) and prepared a compromise agreement.
Respondent likewise said that without telling him why, complainant
later on withdrew all the files pertinent to the Regwill case. However, when no
settlement was reached, the latter instructed him to draft a complaint for
breach of contract. Respondent, whose services had never been paid by
complainant until this time, told the latter about his acceptance and legal
fees. When told that these fees amounted to P187,742, complainant promised to
pay on installment basis.
On January 4, 1999, complainant gave the amount of P25,000
to respondent’s secretary and told her that it was for the filing fee of the
Regwill case. When informed of the payment, the lawyer immediately called the
attention of complainant, informing the latter of the need to pay the acceptance
and filing fees before the complaint could be filed. Complainant was told that
the amount he had paid was a deposit for the acceptance fee, and that he should
give the filing fee later.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship existed between
Atty. Magulta and the complainant
RULING:
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very
first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the
former’s business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that
the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is
not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which
his service had been sought.
If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any
kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the
consultation, then the professional employment is established.
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding
the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the
nonpayment of the former’s fees. Hence, despite the fact that complainant was
kumpadre of a law partner of respondent, and that respondent dispensed legal
advice to complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre, the lawyer was
dutybound to file the complaint he had agreed to prepare—and had actually
prepared—at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the client’s interest.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers
should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them.
The Court has constantly held that once lawyers agree to
take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. They owe entire devotion
to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and the defense of
the client’s rights, and the exertion of their utmost learning and abilities to
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from the client, save by the rules of
law legally applied.
Comments
Post a Comment