Morales vs. Borres, Jr.

A lawyer may not be disciplined for violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility absent substantial evidence of neglect or lack of competence; the mere loss of a client's case does not equate to neglect of duty.

Complainant Edgardo M. Morales engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Ramiro B. Borres, Jr. in connection with complaints for trespass to property and malicious mischief. The engagement implicated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require a lawyer to owe fidelity to the client's cause and to serve with competence and diligence. The administrative complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation and disciplinary recommendation.

Complainant Edgardo M. Morales engaged respondent Atty. Ramiro B. Borres, Jr. to assist him in filing complaints for trespass to property and malicious mischief against Perla Borja, Spouses Edmundo and Marilyn Bonto, and Erlinda Brines. Morales paid respondent P25,000 as acceptance fee. Respondent prepared three complaints for malicious mischief, all filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor-Tabaco City (OCP-Tabaco City). In the Investigation Data Forms submitted to the OCP-Tabaco City, Morales indicated the residence of his brother-in-law in Tabaco City as his postal address although he was actually residing in Quezon City.

Respondent subsequently informed Morales that the cases were dismissed. Morales asked for copies of the resolutions of dismissal, but respondent did not give him any. The two then went together to the OCP-Tabaco City to obtain copies of these resolutions. There, they were informed that the notices sent to the brother-in-law's residence in Tabaco City were returned unserved. The OCP-Tabaco City nonetheless directed Morales to submit the necessary information on the ages of the parties sought to be charged, the date of case referral for barangay conciliation, and copies of police and barangay blotters of the purported acts of malicious mischief on his property. For the purpose of filing his motion for reconsideration, Morales gave respondent a copy of his title to the subject property. Respondent, however, did not attach this title to the motion for reconsideration eventually filed before the OCP-Tabaco City. The motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground that Morales allegedly failed to sufficiently prove his ownership of the property.

In his defense, respondent countered that although he moved his law office from Tabaco City to Makati City, he still managed to follow up the status of the cases with the OCP-Tabaco City whenever he had a hearing in the area; the personnel assigned to the cases were always not around each time he went there to inquire. He did not know that Morales indicated the Tabaco City residence of his brother-in-law as his postal address in the records of the OCP-Tabaco City. He never suppressed any information from Morales regarding the status of the cases. As soon as he learned that the cases were dismissed, he called Morales for the required information on the ages of the parties sought to be charged and even accompanied Morales to the OCP-Tabaco City to secure copies of its orders and resolutions. He did not prepare the motion for reconsideration with haste; it bore the required ages of the parties. As for the police and barangay blotters, he was unable to submit them because they were destroyed when Albay was hit by typhoons and other calamities. Regarding Morales's title, there was no need to attach it to the motion for reconsideration since the parties themselves had already acknowledged in their Kasunduan executed before the barangay that Morales owned the property. When he learned that the motion for reconsideration was denied, he promptly advised Morales to file a petition for review with the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, but Morales did not heed his advice.

The IBP Board of Governors found that respondent had no personal knowledge that Morales used his brother-in-law's address in Tabaco City; that respondent visited the OCP-Tabaco City whenever he was in the area but was not advised of the case status because the assigned employee was absent; that respondent learned of the dismissal on February 4, 2016 while attending a hearing before the Regional Trial Court; that respondent then called Morales and asked him to go to Tabaco City to secure documents showing the ages of the respondents; that respondent reasonably decided not to present the titles because the parties had acknowledged Morales's ownership in the Kasunduan; that the motion for reconsideration was not hastily prepared because it contained the approximate ages of the persons sued; and that the barangay copies were no longer available due to calamities in the province. The Board also noted that the situation could have been remedied by filing a petition for review as suggested by respondent, but Morales never made known his intentions to respondent.

• Lack of Fidelity and Diligence: Complainant alleged that respondent failed to exercise zeal in protecting his interests in the cases, was not aware of developments, deliberately withheld copies of orders and resolutions of the OCP-Tabaco City, failed to furnish the OCP-Tabaco City with police and barangay blotters of the malicious mischief complained of, and failed to attach his title to the motion for reconsideration.
• Handling of the Cases: Complainant alleged that he paid respondent P25,000 as acceptance fee and that respondent only prepared three complaints for malicious mischief, which were all filed before the OCP-Tabaco City.
• Non-Receipt of Copies: Complainant alleged that respondent informed him the cases were dismissed but did not give him copies of the dismissal resolutions, and that they later learned at the OCP-Tabaco City that notices sent to his brother-in-law's residence in Tabaco City were returned unserved.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: Complainant alleged that he gave respondent a copy of his title for the motion for reconsideration, but respondent did not attach it, and the motion was denied for failure to sufficiently prove ownership.

• Follow-up of Cases: Respondent maintained that although he moved his law office from Tabaco City to Makati City, he still followed up the status of the cases with the OCP-Tabaco City whenever he had a hearing in the area, but the personnel assigned to the cases were always not around.
• Postal Address: Respondent maintained that he did not know Morales indicated the Tabaco City residence of his brother-in-law as his postal address in the records of the OCP-Tabaco City, and that he never suppressed any information from Morales regarding the status of the cases.
• Prompt Action After Dismissal: Respondent maintained that as soon as he learned the cases were dismissed, he called Morales for the required information on the ages of the parties and accompanied him to the OCP-Tabaco City to secure copies of its orders and resolutions.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Respondent maintained that he did not prepare the motion for reconsideration with haste, that it bore the required ages, that the police and barangay blotters were destroyed by typhoons and other calamities in Albay, and that there was no need to attach Morales's title because the parties had acknowledged Morales's ownership in the Kasunduan before the barangay.
• Advice to Seek Review: Respondent maintained that when the motion for reconsideration was denied, he promptly advised Morales to file a petition for review with the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, but Morales did not heed his advice.

• Competence and Diligence: Whether respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Competence and Diligence: No. The complaint was dismissed because complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence any violation of Canons 17 and 18; the loss of the cases does not equate to neglect of duty.

• Competence and Diligence: Canons 17 and 18 impose an exacting standard and require lawyers to serve clients with competence, fidelity, and diligence. Complainant faulted respondent for lack of zeal, unawareness of developments, withholding copies, failure to furnish blotters, and failure to attach title. These charges were not substantiated. Respondent was not counsel of record in the subject cases, which explains why he did not receive copies of orders or resolutions; it was therefore unfair to suspect withholding. Complainant admitted that copies intended for him were returned unserved because he indicated the brother-in-law's Tabaco City residence instead of his correct address. Complainant did not refute respondent's assertion that he followed up the cases whenever he had a hearing in Tabaco City, Albay, although the assigned personnel were not around. Complainant also did not deny that there was no need to attach the title because the parties had acknowledged his ownership in the Kasunduan before the barangay, and that the police and barangay blotters could no longer be produced because they were destroyed by typhoons and calamities in Albay. Nor did complainant contradict that respondent promptly advised him to elevate the denial of the motion for reconsideration to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, advice complainant did not heed; for his own failure to avail of that remedy, he could not resort to disbarment as an alternative. A disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy simply because a lawyer lost a case; acceptance of a client or case is not a guarantee of victory, and what is guaranteed is the observance and exercise of a reasonable degree of care and skill. Once a lawyer takes up a client's cause, he is duty-bound to serve with competence and to attend with diligence, care, and devotion whether for a fee or for free, and neglect of a legal matter constitutes inexcusable negligence. Here, respondent was not shown to have neglected his duty; that he may not have won the cases did not equate to neglect. In disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence, meaning he must satisfactorily establish the facts upon which the charges are based. Complainant failed to discharge that burden, so respondent's right to be presumed innocent and to have regularly performed his duty as an officer of the court remained in place. The Court will discipline lawyers shown to have failed their sworn duties, but it will also protect a lawyer unjustly accused by a dissatisfied litigant over a case lost without fault on the lawyer's part.

• Burden of proof in disbarment proceedings — In disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence, meaning the complainant must satisfactorily establish the facts upon which the charges against the respondent are based. The Court applied this rule when it found that Morales failed to discharge his burden, leaving respondent's presumption of innocence and regular performance of duty intact.
• Loss of a client's case is not equivalent to neglect of duty — A lawyer's acceptance of a client or case is not a guarantee of victory; what is guaranteed is the observance and exercise of a reasonable degree of care and skill to protect the client's interests and to do all acts necessary therefor. A disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy simply because a lawyer lost a case. The Court applied this doctrine because respondent may not have won the cases but was not shown to have neglected his duty.
• Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — 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. These Canons impose an exacting standard. The Court found no violation because complainant failed to prove lack of fidelity or diligence.
• Duty to serve with competence and diligence regardless of fee — Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the client with competence and to attend to the cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable. The Court found no neglect in this case.
• Disbarment as an alternative remedy — A disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy to be brought against a lawyer simply because he lost a case he handled for his client. Where the client fails to avail of an appropriate remedy, such as a petition for review, he cannot resort to a disbarment suit as an alternative. The Court applied this because Morales did not heed respondent's advice to file a petition for review with the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor.
• Protective arm of the Court — The Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon a lawyer shown to have failed to live up to his or her sworn duties, but it will also extend its protective arm to a lawyer unjustly accused by a dissatisfied litigant relative to a case lost without any fault on the lawyer's part. The Court applied this by dismissing the complaint.

• "A disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy to be brought against a lawyer simply because he lost a case he handled for his client. A lawyer's acceptance of a client or case is not a guarantee of victory. When a lawyer agrees to act as counsel, what is guaranteed is the observance and exercise of reasonable degree of care and skill to protect the client's interests and to do all acts necessary therefor." — This passage states the ratio decidendi that losing a case, without more, does not justify disbarment; the guarantee is reasonable care and skill, not victory.
• "In disbarment proceedings, complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence." — This passage defines the quantum of proof required in disbarment proceedings and was the basis for dismissing the complaint after complainant failed to substantiate the charges.
• "But once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Thus, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable." — This passage articulates the continuing duty of competence and diligence and the consequence of neglect, while the Court found no such neglect on the facts.
• "As the Court has invariably pronounced, it will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon a lawyer who is shown to have failed to live up to his or her sworn duties. But the Court will not hesitate either to extend its protective arm to a lawyer unjustly accused by a dissatisfied litigant relative to a case lost without any fault on the part of the lawyer." — This passage balances the Court's disciplinary power with its protective function toward lawyers wrongly accused after an unfavorable result.

• Angeles vs. Lina-ac, A.C. No. 12063, January 8, 2019 — Cited for the rule that Canons 17 and 18 impose an exacting standard and require lawyers to serve their clients with competence, fidelity, and diligence.
• Spouses Gimena vs. Atty. Vijiga, A.C. No. 11828, November 22, 2017 — Cited for the rule that a disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy simply because a lawyer lost a case; acceptance of a client or case is not a guarantee of victory, and what is guaranteed is the observance and exercise of a reasonable degree of care and skill.
• Go vs. Atty. Buri, A.C. No. 12296, December 4, 2018 — Cited for the rule that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve with competence and to attend to the cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether for a fee or for free, and that neglect of a legal matter constitutes inexcusable negligence.
• Arsenio vs. Atty. Tabuzo, 809 Phil. 206, 210 (2017) — Cited for the rule that in disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence.
• Alag vs. Atty. Sanupe, Jr., A.C. No. 12115, October 15, 2018 — Cited for the rule that substantial evidence means the complainant must satisfactorily establish the facts upon which the charges against the respondent are based.
• Guanzon vs. Dojillo, A.C. No. 9850, August 6, 2018 — Cited for the rule that the Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon a lawyer shown to have failed to live up to his or her sworn duties.

• 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 no violation because respondent was not shown to have been unfaithful or to have withheld information from complainant.
• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The Court found no violation because respondent followed up the cases, promptly informed complainant of the dismissal, sought the required information, and advised complainant to file a petition for review; any failure to win the cases did not amount to neglect.

Justice Carpio (Chairperson), Justice Perlas-Bernabe, and Justice Caguioa concurred. Justice J. Reyes, Jr. was on leave.