Cabuello vs. Talaboc

A lawyer who repeatedly fails to appear at scheduled hearings and files a series of baseless postponement motions, thereby neglecting the client's cause and delaying court proceedings, violates Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants suspension from the practice of law.

Reynaldo Cabuello engaged the legal services of Atty. Editha P. Talaboc to represent his parents, Alejandro and Cecilia Cabuello, who were charged with qualified theft of coconuts in Criminal Cases Nos. CC-2007-1635 and CC-2007-1636 before the RTC of Calbiga, Samar, Branch 33. The administrative complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which governs disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar. Upon complainant's death on March 27, 2016, his sister Beatriz Cabuello Cabutin was substituted as complainant by order of the Court dated November 8, 2016.

Reynaldo Cabuello engaged the services of Atty. Editha P. Talaboc to represent his parents, Alejandro and Cecilia Cabuello, who were accused in Criminal Cases Nos. CC-2007-1635 and CC-2007-1636 for qualified theft of coconuts, pending before the RTC of Calbiga, Samar, Branch 33. Complainant paid respondent a series of amounts from August 21, 2007 to April 18, 2008, totaling ₱97,500.00, covering filing fees, acceptance fees, transportation expenses, motion preparation, and a supposed criminal case to be filed against the police officers who arrested the accused. The cases were set for arraignment on July 27, 2007, but respondent failed to appear, prompting the trial court to assign a counsel de oficio to assist the accused.

Thereafter, respondent filed a series of motions to reset hearings. On August 31, 2007, she filed a Motion to Transfer Dates of Hearing, praying that the October 1 and 12, 2007 hearings be moved to November 8 and 9, 2007 for economic and convenience reasons. The trial court granted the motion, but respondent again filed an Urgent Motion to Reset Hearing to January 18, 2008, citing severe and recurring back pains from a vehicular accident on September 7, 2007, supported by a medical certificate. The pre-trial was reset to November 28 and 29, 2007, but did not proceed because respondent filed another motion to reset to December 19 and 20, 2007. Several postponements followed until June 19, 2008, when respondent again failed to appear, this time citing peptic ulcer. The trial court issued a warrant of arrest for the accused. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest, and the hearing was set for July 31, 2008. On that date, respondent was again absent despite due notice. Further settings followed until the pre-trial conference was set for September 25, 2008.

On September 25, 2008, respondent again failed to appear, leading the trial court to appoint Atty. Prescilla A. Salvacion of the Public Attorney's Office as counsel for the accused. Notwithstanding this appointment, respondent still filed a Motion to Reset Hearing, praying that the November 27 and December 11, 2008 trial dates be moved to January 15, 2009 and February 19, 2009. The trial court denied the motion, noting that Atty. Salvacion had already ably assisted the accused during the pre-trial conference. During the December 11, 2008 hearing, Atty. Salvacion informed the court that respondent's secretary had called to say respondent would still appear and would be available on January 15, 2009. The trial court rejected this, stating that respondent "just kept on promising that she will be coming to appear on this case, but she never once came to this Court to appear." Respondent never communicated with complainant or his family thereafter. On March 13, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Accused.

Complainant sent demand letters dated February 15, 2009 and September 13, 2010, seeking the return of payments, but respondent disregarded both. Complainant filed the administrative complaint on October 12, 2010. Respondent failed to file an Answer or position paper before the IBP Investigating Commissioner, and the case was heard ex parte. The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent's repeated absences and postponement motions delayed the pre-trial of the case for eleven months, from the arraignment on July 27, 2007 until the appointment of counsel de oficio on September 25, 2008. In her motion for reconsideration before the IBP Board, respondent claimed she had health problems, had filed pleadings including an Omnibus Motion and bail reduction request, had purchased a plane ticket for a hearing that was cancelled due to the presiding judge's retirement, and had offered to return payments to Cecilia Cabuello, which offer was declined. Respondent also claimed entitlement to fees on a quantum meruit basis for services rendered.

• Neglect of Duty: Complainant alleged that respondent was paid for legal services but never attended any hearing of his parents' criminal cases, forcing him to travel back and forth between Manila and the province for ten months, spending approximately ₱150,000.00 in the process.
• Failure to File Agreed Case: Complainant maintained that respondent failed to file the criminal case against the police officers who arrested the accused, despite having been paid ₱15,000.00 for that purpose.
• Unjustified Refund Refusal: Complainant argued that respondent disregarded two demand letters seeking the return of payments, demonstrating bad faith and warranting disciplinary action.
• Procedural Objections to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration: Complainant contended that respondent's version of the facts should not be raised in a motion for reconsideration, that the attachments to respondent's motion admitted there were payments made, and that a lawyer's duty of diligence continues until the termination of the client-lawyer relationship.
• Denial of Bail Bond Payment: Complainant denied that respondent paid the bail bond of his parents, asserting that he had the money and respondent's secretary merely accompanied him, later advising that the receipt be placed under her name.

• Health Problems: Respondent argued that she had intimated to complainant at the time of engagement that she had health problems and might have to withdraw, with her assistant Marivic Alusitain available to assist with legwork and filing of pleadings.
• Services Rendered: Respondent maintained that she had filed an Omnibus Motion, secured bail reduction for the accused, and caused the release of co-accused Cecilia Cabuello, entitling her to fees on a quantum meruit basis.
• Client Conformity to Postponements: Respondent asserted that all resetting of hearings were filed with the knowledge and conformity of the accused and complainant, and that they had agreed for economic reasons that the Cabuellos would verify with the court whether hearings would push through.
• Termination by Clients: Respondent argued that the accused, through complainant, informed her they would terminate her services and engage new counsel, and that she thereafter filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel with the conformity of the accused and duly received by the court.
• Offer to Return Payments: Respondent contended that she offered to return payments to Cecilia Cabuello, which offer was declined, and that complainant's monetary claim of ₱97,500.00 had no basis as she spent ₱22,000.00 for bail, ₱10,000.00 for her assistant's fare, ₱10,000.00 for other expenses, and ₱5,000.00 for a plane ticket.
• Denial of Other Payments: Respondent denied the other alleged payments and stated that any money delivered by complainant to her assistant arose out of their own arrangement, as respondent never ordered complainant to that effect.
• Excuse for Non-Filing: Respondent claimed she was in New York, U.S.A., undergoing medical testing for bone marrow donation to her brother afflicted with cancer, which explained her failure to file an Answer or appear before the IBP.

• Violation of Canons 17 and 18: Whether respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting her clients' criminal cases through repeated non-appearance and serial postponement motions.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of two years' suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is appropriate, or whether it should be modified.
• Refund of Attorney's Fees: Whether respondent should be ordered to refund the payments received from complainant, and if so, in what amount.

• Violation of Canons 17 and 18: Yes. Respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 by never appearing at any hearing and filing a series of postponement motions that delayed the pre-trial for eleven months, until the trial court was forced to appoint a counsel de oficio.
• Proper Penalty: Modified. The penalty was reduced from two years to one year suspension, the Court noting that in several prior cases it had imposed one year's suspension for violations of Canons 17 and 18.
• Refund of Attorney's Fees: Yes, but limited to ₱50,000.00. Complainant failed to present receipts or documents to substantiate the full ₱97,500.00 claimed, but respondent herself admitted receiving ₱50,000.00 in attorney's fees, expenses, and PAL ticket refund, which amount she had offered to return.

• Violation of Canons 17 and 18: The records established that respondent was remiss in her duty as counsel by never appearing in the hearings of the criminal cases. Her repeated filing of motions to reset hearings — from the arraignment on July 27, 2007 until her eventual withdrawal — contributed to an eleven-month delay in the pre-trial. The trial court's own Orders documented that respondent "had filed a series of postponements alleging every thinkable ground as reasons for her nonappearance." Even after the trial court appointed a counsel de oficio on September 25, 2008, respondent continued to file motions to reset, which the court denied. Canon 17 requires a lawyer to owe fidelity to the cause of his client and to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Canon 18 requires a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence. A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to the latter's genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. The entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it duties not only to the client but also to the court, the bar, and the public. Respondent's conduct fell squarely below these standards.

• Proper Penalty: The IBP Board of Governors initially imposed six months' suspension, then increased it to two years upon denial of respondent's motion for reconsideration. The Court, citing Chang vs. Hidalgo, noted that in several cases it had imposed the penalty of one year's suspension for violations of Canons 17 and 18. Accordingly, the Court modified the penalty from two years to one year, finding that the established jurisprudential standard supported the lesser period.

• Refund of Attorney's Fees: The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between the client and the attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties. In this case, there was no retainer's agreement to ascertain the fees agreed upon. Complainant claimed total payments of ₱97,500.00 but failed to present receipts or documentary evidence. However, in Annex "14" of respondent's motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted receiving ₱25,000.00 as attorney's/acceptance fee for the two criminal cases, ₱15,000.00 for the case supposed to be filed with the fiscal's office, ₱5,000.00 for expenses, and ₱5,000.00 representing the refund of a PAL ticket — totaling ₱50,000.00. Respondent had even offered to return this amount to Cecilia Cabuello, who declined. In the absence of receipts substantiating the full amount claimed, the Court limited the refund to the admitted ₱50,000.00, with legal interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the Decision until fully paid.

• Fidelity to the Client's Cause (Canon 17) — 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 canon to hold respondent liable for neglecting her clients' criminal cases through repeated non-appearance, thereby betraying the trust reposed in her by the accused and their family.

• Competence and Diligence (Canon 18) — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The Court found that respondent's serial filing of postponement motions and failure to attend any hearing constituted a failure to serve her clients with the diligence required, warranting disciplinary sanction.

• Disciplinary Proceedings Are for Public Welfare — Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance; they are undertaken solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice. The Court invoked this doctrine, drawn from Camara vs. Atty. Reyes, to underscore that administrative liability attaches regardless of the complainant's standing or interest in the outcome.

• Retainer's Agreement as Law Between Parties — Attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between client and attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long as it is not contrary to law, morals, or public policy. The Court applied this principle to limit the refund to the amount respondent admitted receiving, because no retainer's agreement existed and complainant lacked documentary proof of the full amount claimed.

• "It appears from the records that the arraignment of these cases was conducted on July 27, 2007 yet but no pre-trail conference was conducted because Atty. Editha Talaboc, the counsel for both accused had filed a series of postponements alleging every thinkable ground as reasons for her nonappearance." — This quotation from the trial court's Order dated June 19, 2008, adopted by the Supreme Court, encapsulates the factual basis for the finding of neglect and the violation of Canons 17 and 18.

• "Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them." — This passage, quoted from Camara vs. Atty. Reyes, articulates the foundational principle that administrative cases against lawyers are public in nature and not vehicles for private recovery, a doctrine central to the Court's jurisdiction over the complaint.

• "The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between the client and the attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order." — This formulation, drawn from Sanchez vs. Aguilos, states the governing rule on attorney's fees that the Court applied to limit the refund to the amount respondent admitted receiving.

• Camara vs. Atty. Reyes, 612 Phil. 1 (2009) — Controlling precedent cited for the doctrine that disciplinary proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare and not for private redress, and that the Court may investigate charges against lawyers regardless of the complainant's standing.

• Sanchez vs. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016, 787 SCRA 457 — Followed for the rule that attorney's fees are governed by the retainer's agreement between the parties, which constitutes the law between them.

• Chang vs. Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934, April 6, 2016, 788 SCRA 474 — Followed for the proposition that one year's suspension is the standard penalty imposed for violations of Canons 17 and 18, which the Court used to reduce the IBP's two-year penalty.

• Canon 17, 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 found respondent in violation of this canon for neglecting her clients' cases and betraying the trust reposed in her through repeated non-appearance and serial postponement motions.

• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." The Court held that respondent's failure to attend any hearing and her pattern of filing baseless postponement motions constituted a lack of competence and diligence in the handling of her clients' defense.

• Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Governs disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar. The IBP transmitted the case to the Supreme Court pursuant to this rule after the IBP Board of Governors rendered its resolutions.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires, Associate Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam, Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo. (Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Mariano C. Del Castillo were on official leave and official business, respectively; Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was on leave.)