Nebreja vs. Reonal

A lawyer who receives an acceptance fee and thereafter fails to file the contracted pleading, misrepresents the case status, and uses a fictitious office address is administratively liable for inexcusable negligence and violation of the lawyer’s oath; the disciplinary penalty may be imposed, but the order to return the amounts received is deleted because the complainant must claim them in an independent civil or criminal action.

Ma. Elena Carlos Nebreja engaged Atty. Benjamin Reonal for legal services in connection with an intended petition for annulment of marriage. The engagement and its alleged non-performance became the subject of an administrative complaint for disbarment filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The proceeding implicated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, and the lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood. The IBP’s findings were elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

On June 26, 2006, Ma. Elena Carlos Nebreja filed a verified Complaint-Affidavit before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines against Atty. Benjamin Reonal. She alleged that sometime in March 2004, she engaged respondent’s services to file her petition for annulment. She paid in cash and in checks the various fees he asked from her on several occasions, which totalled ₱55,000.00. After paying respondent, complainant did not receive any word from him regarding the status of her petition other than his claim that they needed to wait for her appointment with the psychologist evaluation.

On April 4, 2005, respondent told complainant that her petition for annulment was dismissed for lack of evidence. He then again asked for sums of money, on separate occasions, totalling ₱25,900.00, to pay for the psychological test, the sheriff’s fee, the re-filing fee, and the publication. Despite respondent’s receipt of these sums, complainant again failed to receive any update. When she asked for the schedule of her psychological test, respondent merely told her that the psychologist was unavailable. When she tried to ask for the number of her case and to obtain copies of the records, respondent told her that the records were kept in a cabinet, the key to which was in the possession of his law partner who was out of town at that time.

On March 14, 2006, complainant met with respondent to secure copies of her annulment case file. Respondent, however, merely handed to her photocopies of her marriage contract and her children’s birth certificates. When she asked for copies of her case files, he told her that his law office could not let her use the pleadings of the case. She then asked for his office address to appeal to his law partners, but respondent refused to give it. Complainant checked her records and found respondent’s demand letter bearing the address of his claimed law office, “18/f Century Towers Building, Legaspi St. corner de la Rosa, Makati.” When complainant tried to look for the said office, she discovered that there was no such building. She also found respondent’s calling card bearing the address, “86 Magat Salamat Street, Project 4, Quezon City,” which, complainant found out, was respondent’s residential address.

When complainant tried again to obtain copies of her annulment case from respondent, he did not give any and told her that her annulment case would just be re-filed. When she asked him to write a letter to explain to the University of Perpetual Help-Rizal the discrepancy between the surnames appearing in her children’s NSO-issued birth certificates and the school records, respondent did not mention any pending annulment case in the letter, which he filed in complainant’s behalf. These circumstances made complainant suspect that he did not file any petition for annulment at all.

In his answer and position paper, respondent denied having been engaged by complainant to handle her petition for annulment and having been paid therefor. In particular, respondent averred that complainant did not engage him to be her lawyer because she was unemployed and could not afford his legal services; that he was the retained counsel of one Desiree Dee, complainant’s associate, in the prosecution of labor, civil and criminal cases, but not for her annulment; that in the preparation of the affidavit for the University of Perpetual Help, he did not mention her intention to pursue an annulment proceeding against her husband upon her request; and that no psychological test was conducted because she refused to allocate time to accommodate the schedule of the clinical psychologist. The CBD found complainant’s documentary evidence of payment sufficient to prove the engagement of respondent’s legal services and credited her categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony; it did not give credence to respondent’s uncorroborated denials. The CBD also found that respondent used a fictitious office address to deceive complainant, as he submitted no proof that the building existed or that he held office there.

• Failure to File Contracted Petition: Complainant alleged that she engaged respondent in March 2004 to file her petition for annulment and paid him ₱55,000.00 in cash and checks, followed by ₱25,900.00 for the psychological test, sheriff’s fee, re-filing fee, and publication; despite these payments, respondent never filed the petition.
• Misrepresentation of Case Status: Complainant maintained that respondent falsely told her the petition was dismissed for lack of evidence, gave excuses about the psychologist, case records, and law partner, and failed to provide the case number or copies of records.
• Fictitious Office Address: Complainant alleged that respondent used a fictitious office address at “18/f Century Towers Building, Legaspi St. corner de la Rosa, Makati,” which did not exist, and that his calling card bore his residential address at “86 Magat Salamat Street, Project 4, Quezon City.”
• Suspicion of Non-Filing: Complainant argued that respondent’s failure to mention any pending annulment case in the letter to the University of Perpetual Help-Rizal made her suspect that he did not file any petition at all.

• Denial of Engagement: Respondent denied having been engaged by complainant to handle her petition for annulment and having been paid therefor.
• Inability to Pay: Respondent averred that complainant did not engage him because she was unemployed and could not afford his legal services.
• Scope of Retainer: Respondent claimed he was the retained counsel of one Desiree Dee, complainant’s associate, in the prosecution of labor, civil, and criminal cases, but not for complainant’s annulment.
• University Affidavit: Respondent stated that in preparing the affidavit for the University of Perpetual Help, he did not mention complainant’s intention to pursue an annulment proceeding against her husband upon her request.
• Psychological Test: Respondent asserted that no psychological test was conducted because complainant refused to allocate time to accommodate the schedule of the clinical psychologist.

• Failure to File and Misrepresentation: Whether respondent failed to file the requisite petition for annulment for complainant and misrepresented its status.
• Fictitious Office Address: Whether respondent used a fictitious office address.
• Return of Amounts: Whether the IBP’s order for respondent to return ₱80,900.00 with 12% interest per annum should be affirmed.

• Failure to File and Misrepresentation: Yes. Respondent’s receipt of acceptance fee and complete neglect of complainant’s cause, coupled with failure to inform her of the true status of the petition, violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Fictitious Office Address: Yes. Respondent used a fictitious office address, violating his lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood and rendering him administratively liable.
• Return of Amounts: No. The order to return ₱80,900.00 with 12% interest is deleted; the complainant must claim and collect the amount in an independent civil or criminal action.

• Failure to File and Misrepresentation: The CBD found sufficient documentary evidence of payment and credited complainant’s categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony. Respondent’s denials were not corroborated and positive evidence outweighed negative evidence. The Court agreed that despite the engagement, respondent did not file the contracted petition. Under Vda. De Enriquez vs. San Jose, this amounted to inexcusable negligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. Receiving an acceptance fee and then failing to render the services violates Canon 18. Failure to inform the client of the status of the case is likewise penalized.
• Fictitious Office Address: The CBD found that respondent used a fictitious office address to deceive complainant. He submitted no proof that the building existed or that he held office at that address. He also did not deny the due execution and authenticity of the letter bearing his printed office address. By failing to controvert the evidence of the other party, the truth of said evidence was deemed admitted. This act violated respondent’s lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood and rendered him administratively liable. Porac Trucking, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Afurong vs. Aquino illustrate suspensions for similar misrepresentations.
• Return of Amounts: The Court deleted the IBP’s order to return ₱80,900.00 with 12% interest per annum because it has recently adopted the policy to let the complainant claim and collect the amount due from the respondent in an independent action, civil or criminal. Nevertheless, the Court looks with disfavor on the non-payment by a lawyer of his due obligations.

• Inexcusable Negligence under Rule 18.03, Canon 18, 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. The mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. The Court applied this rule to respondent, who received an acceptance fee but failed to file the contracted annulment petition and failed to inform complainant of the true status of the case.
• Lawyer’s Oath to Do No Falsehood — A lawyer must not commit falsehood. The Court held that respondent’s use of a fictitious office address to deceive complainant violated his lawyer’s oath and rendered him administratively liable.
• Positive vs. Negative Evidence — A positive statement is stronger and attains greater evidentiary weight than negative evidence. The Court relied on this principle in upholding the CBD’s crediting of complainant’s categorical testimony over respondent’s uncorroborated denials.
• Failure to Controvert Evidence — By failing to controvert the evidence of the other party, the truth of said evidence is deemed admitted. The Court applied this to respondent’s failure to deny the due execution and authenticity of the letter bearing his fictitious office address.
• Return of Amounts in Disciplinary Proceedings — The Court has adopted the policy of letting the complainant claim and collect the amount due from the respondent in an independent civil or criminal action, rather than ordering restitution as part of the administrative disciplinary resolution. The Court applied this policy to delete the IBP’s order for return of ₱80,900.00.

• "Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." — This is the codal rule applied by the Court to hold respondent administratively liable for failing to file the contracted annulment petition.
• "This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation." — This passage states the ratio for treating a lawyer’s non-performance of entrusted legal work as a violation of Rule 18.03.
• "In this case, respondent clearly received his acceptance fee, among others, and then completely neglected his client’s cause. Moreover, he failed to inform complainant of the true status of the petition. His act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the complainant's case and, subsequently, failing to render the services, was a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility." — This is the Court’s application of Canon 18 to the facts, finding a clear violation based on receipt of fees and non-performance.
• "The Court has recently adopted the policy to let the complainant claim and collect the amount due from the respondent in an independent action, civil or criminal." — This passage explains why the Court deleted the IBP’s order for respondent to return ₱80,900.00 to complainant.

• Vda. De Enriquez vs. San Jose, 545 Phil. 379 (2007) — Cited by the Court to characterize respondent’s failure to file the contracted petition as inexcusable negligence.
• Solidon vs. Macalad, A.C. No. 8158, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 472 — Cited for the rule that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform obligations due to the client is per se a violation of Rule 18.03.
• Villafuerte vs. Cortez, 351 Phil. 915 (1998) — Cited as an example where a lawyer was held negligent for failing to do anything to protect the client’s interest after receiving an acceptance fee.
• Garcia vs. Atty. Manuel, 443 Phil. 479 (2003) — Cited as a case where a lawyer was penalized for failing to inform the client of the status of the case.
• Reyes vs. Vitan, 496 Phil. 1 (2005) — Cited for suspension and accounting after failure to take appropriate actions in the client’s case; also cited in the Court’s conclusion that receiving an acceptance fee and failing to render services violates Canon 18.
• Porac Trucking, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 279 Phil. 736 (1991) — Cited as an example of a six-month suspension for a lawyer who falsely claimed to be counsel for a company.
• Afurong vs. Aquino, 373 Phil. 695 (1999) — Cited as another example of a six-month suspension for falsely claiming membership in the Citizens Legal Assistance Office.
• Republic vs. Bautista, 559 Phil. 360 (2007) — Cited for the rule that a positive statement is stronger and attains greater evidentiary weight than negative evidence.
• Sadhwani vs. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 54 (1997) — Cited for the rule that allegations are not equivalent to proof.
• Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 319 Phil. 413 (1995) — Cited for the rule that failure to controvert the evidence of the other party deems the truth of said evidence admitted.

• Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and that his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The Court applied this provision to respondent’s failure to file the annulment petition and failure to update complainant.
• Lawyer’s Oath — The oath to do no falsehood. The Court applied this to respondent’s use of a fictitious office address, which constituted misrepresentation and rendered him administratively liable.

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