De Dominguez vs. Agleron

A lawyer who neglects a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file the appropriate charges despite having received funds for that purpose is liable under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the client's alleged failure to fully pay filing fees and attorney's fees does not constitute a valid excuse where the lawyer made no effort to communicate with the client regarding the insufficiency.

Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez was the widow of Felipe Dominguez, who died in a vehicular accident in Caraga, Davao Oriental, on October 18, 1995, involving a dump truck owned by the Municipality of Caraga. She engaged the professional services of respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. to file charges against the Municipality. The dispute arose from respondent's failure to file the complaint despite receiving funds for filing and sheriff's fees over the course of four years.

Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez was the widow of Felipe Dominguez, who died in a vehicular accident in Caraga, Davao Oriental, on October 18, 1995, involving a dump truck owned by the Municipality of Caraga. Aggrieved by her husband's death, complainant decided to file charges against the Municipality and engaged the professional services of respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr.

On three occasions, Atty. Agleron requested and received from complainant amounts for the payment of filing fees and sheriff's fees: ₱3,000.00 on June 3, 1996; ₱1,800.00 on June 7, 1996; and ₱5,250.00 on September 2, 1996, totaling ₱10,050.00. After the lapse of four years, however, no complaint was filed by Atty. Agleron against the Municipality of Caraga.

Atty. Agleron admitted that complainant engaged his professional services and that he received the ₱10,050.00. He explained that under their agreement, complainant would pay the filing fees and other incidental expenses, and as soon as the complaint was prepared and ready for filing, she would pay 30% of the agreed attorney's fees of ₱100,000.00. He claimed that on June 7, 1996, after the signing of the complaint, he advised complainant to pay in full the filing fee and sheriff's fees and the 30% attorney's fee, but complainant failed to do so. He averred that since the complaint could not be filed in court, the amount of ₱10,050.00 was deposited in a bank while awaiting payment of the balance.

In reply, complainant denied that she failed to give the full payment of the filing fee and asserted that the filing fee at that time amounted only to ₱7,836.60 — less than the total amount she had already remitted to respondent.

• Neglect of Legal Matter: Complainant alleged that respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file the complaint against the Municipality of Caraga for four years despite receiving ₱10,050.00 for filing and sheriff's fees.
• Sufficiency of Payment: Complainant denied that she failed to remit the full payment of the filing fee, asserting that the filing fee at the time amounted only to ₱7,836.60, which was less than the total amount she had already given to respondent.

• Justification for Non-Filing: Respondent argued that the complaint could not be filed because complainant failed to remit the full payment of the filing fee and the 30% attorney's fee as agreed, rendering the complaint unfileable in court.
• Fee Agreement: Respondent maintained that under their arrangement, complainant would pay filing fees and incidental expenses, and upon preparation of the complaint, would pay 30% of the agreed ₱100,000.00 attorney's fees; he claimed he advised complainant of this on June 7, 1996, but she failed to comply.
• Safekeeping of Funds: Respondent averred that the ₱10,050.00 received from complainant was deposited in a bank while awaiting payment of the balance of the filing fee and attorney's fee.

• Neglect of Legal Matter: Whether respondent Atty. Agleron violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him.
• Validity of Justification: Whether respondent's justification that complainant failed to pay the full filing fee and 30% attorney's fee constitutes a valid excuse for his failure to file the complaint.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the IBP Board of Governors' recommended penalty of one month suspension is appropriate.

• Neglect of Legal Matter: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 18.03 by failing to file the complaint despite having prepared and signed it and despite receiving ₱10,050.00 for filing and sheriff's fees, allowing the matter to languish for four years.
• Validity of Justification: No. The client's alleged failure to fully pay filing fees and attorney's fees does not excuse neglect; the lawyer should have communicated with the client about any insufficiency so the complaint could be filed.
• Proper Penalty: The one-month suspension was modified to three months, the Court finding this sufficient under the established range of three months to two years for neglect of a legal matter.

• Neglect of Legal Matter: Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Once a lawyer takes up a client's cause, he is duty-bound to serve with competence and to attend to the cause with diligence, care, and devotion, regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to the cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Respondent admitted that he failed to file the complaint despite it being prepared and signed. His inaction spanned four years, constituting clear neglect of the legal matter entrusted to him.
• Validity of Justification: Respondent attributed his non-filing to complainant's failure to remit the full filing fee and the 30% attorney's fee. The Court found this not a valid excuse. Even assuming complainant had not remitted full payment, respondent should have found a way to communicate with his client and inform her about the insufficiency of the filing fee so the complaint could be filed. His failure to take any such proactive step demonstrated a lack of professionalism and incompetence in dealing with complainant.
• Proper Penalty: In prior cases, the Court held that a lawyer who neglects a legal matter is liable for disciplinary action in the form of suspension ranging from three months to two years. The Court found the suspension of respondent for three months sufficient, modifying the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation of one month upward to align with the established penalty range.

• Duty of Diligence under Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Once a lawyer takes up a client's cause, he is duty-bound to serve the client with competence and to attend to the cause with diligence, care, and devotion, regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to the cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court applied this rule to find respondent liable for failing to file the complaint for four years despite receiving funds for filing fees. The penalty for violation ranges from suspension of three months to two years.

• "Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or free." — This passage articulates the standard of diligence required of lawyers under Rule 18.03, establishing that the duty of competence and devotion attaches regardless of the fee arrangement.
• "Even assuming that complainant had not remitted the full payment of the filing fee, he should have found a way to speak to his client and inform him about the insufficiency of the filing fee so he could file the complaint." — This establishes that a lawyer cannot justify neglect by pointing to the client's failure to pay; the lawyer bears the affirmative duty to communicate and resolve payment issues rather than allowing the matter to languish indefinitely.

• Uy vs. Tansinsin, A.C. No. 8252, July 21, 2009, 593 SCRA 296 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer owes fidelity to the client's cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him; also cited as authority for the penalty range of three months to two years for neglect of a legal matter.
• Cariño vs. Delos Reyes, 414 Phil. 667 (2001) — Cited for the duty of fidelity owed by a lawyer to the client's cause, which in turn cited Santiago vs. Fojas, A.M. No. 4103, 248 SCRA 68.
• Fernandez vs. Cabrera III, 463 Phil. 352 (2003) — Cited as authority for the penalty of suspension ranging from three months to two years for neglect of a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer.

• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Applied to find respondent liable for failing to file the complaint despite receiving ₱10,050.00 for filing fees and despite having prepared and signed the complaint, allowing four years to pass without any action.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.

None.