Brunet vs. Guaren

A lawyer who neglects a legal matter entrusted to him by a client and fails to act on it for an unreasonable period violates Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action including suspension from the practice of law.

Complainant spouses Stephan and Virginia Brunet engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres. The parties agreed on an acceptance fee of P10,000.00, with full payment due upon delivery of the title, and the complainants advanced P7,000.00. The dispute arose from the respondent's failure to progress with the titling over five years and his subsequent appearance as counsel against the complainants in a separate case.

In February 1997, spouses Stephan and Virginia Brunet engaged the services of Atty. Ronald L. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres. They agreed on a fee of P10,000.00 inclusive of expenses, with full payment to be made after the delivery of the title. Atty. Guaren asked for and received an advance fee of P1,000.00, along with all pertinent documents for the titling. On March 10, 1997, he requested an additional P6,000.00, which the spouses paid.

From 1997 to 2001, the complainants constantly reminded Atty. Guaren about the case, and each time he assured them that the titling was in progress. Bothered by the slow progress, they demanded the return of the money they paid. Atty. Guaren agreed to return the amount, provided that P5,000.00 be deducted for his professional fees. Additionally, despite the existing attorney-client relationship, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against the complainants in a case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu.

Atty. Guaren admitted charging an acceptance fee of P10,000.00 and receiving P7,000.00, but denied that the amount was inclusive of expenses. He claimed that the agreement was to file the case in court only after full payment of his acceptance fee. He also denied taking the original documents, except for a photocopy of the tax declaration. Regarding his appearance against the complainants, he explained that he appeared on behalf of the counsel on record, Atty. Ervin Estandante, who failed to attend the hearing.

• Failure to Perform Obligation: Complainants argued that Atty. Guaren accepted P7,000.00 and took their documents but failed to perform his obligation to title their lot, allowing five years to elapse without progress.
• Conflict of Interest: Complainants maintained that Atty. Guaren betrayed their trust and confidence by making a special appearance against them in a case pending before the MCTC.

• Condition Precedent for Filing: Respondent argued that their agreement was that the case would be filed in court only after the complainants fully paid his acceptance fee.
• Scope of Documents Received: Respondent claimed he did not take the original documents relative to the titling of the lot, except for a photocopy of the tax declaration.
• Justification for Appearance: Respondent argued that his appearance against the complainants was not a betrayal of trust, as he merely appeared for and in behalf of the counsel on record, Atty. Ervin Estandante, who failed to appear at the hearing.

• Neglect of Legal Matter: Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to act on the titling of the complainants' lot for five years despite receiving partial payment.
• Conflict of Interest: Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by appearing against his clients in a separate case without their written consent.

• Neglect of Legal Matter: Yes. Respondent breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Conflict of Interest: Yes. Respondent was disciplined for appearing in a case against complainants without a written consent from the latter.

• Neglect of Legal Matter: The practice of law is a profession where duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall serve with competence and diligence. Atty. Guaren admitted receiving P7,000.00 as partial payment but failed to file the case for the titling of the lot despite the lapse of five years. This constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him, warranting disciplinary action.
• Conflict of Interest: The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Guaren participated in a case filed against the complainants without securing their written consent. The Court adopted this finding, noting that such appearance constitutes unethical conduct justifying suspension.

• Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court applied this to hold Atty. Guaren accountable for failing to advance the titling case and for appearing against his clients.
• Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The Court found that allowing five years to elapse without progress on the titling of the lot breached this duty.
• Nature of the Practice of Law — The practice of law is not a business but a profession in which duty to public service and the administration of justice are the primary considerations, subordinating personal interests or monetary gain.

• "The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits." — This passage articulates the foundational principle guiding the legal profession, emphasizing public service over monetary gain, which underpins the Court's condemnation of the respondent's neglect.
• "Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him." — This statement forms the ratio decidendi for the violation of Canon 18, directly applying the rule to the respondent's failure to progress the titling case over five years.

• Bengco vs. Atty. Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 8 — Cited to support the principle that the practice of law is a profession dedicated to public service rather than a money-making venture.

• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to owe fidelity to the cause of his client and be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Applied to find the respondent in violation for neglecting the titling matter and acting against his clients.
• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence. Applied to penalize the respondent for allowing five years to pass without any progress on the entrusted legal matter.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, and Leonen, JJ.