The Supreme Court in Cariño v. De los Reyes ruled that an attorney’s neglect of a client’s legal matter constitutes a breach of professional responsibility, warranting disciplinary action. This decision underscores the duty of lawyers to diligently pursue their clients’ cases and to act with fidelity to the client’s cause. The ruling emphasizes that returning the acceptance fee does not absolve an attorney from liability for negligence, though it may mitigate the penalty, ensuring lawyers are held accountable for their actions and reinforcing the importance of client trust and diligence in the legal profession.

Broken Promises: When a Lawyer’s Neglect Harms a Client’s Case

This case arose from a dispute between Katrina Joaquin Cariño and Atty. Arturo de los Reyes regarding a legal representation agreement. Cariño claimed she hired De los Reyes to file criminal complaints against relatives but he failed to do so, while De los Reyes argued he was hired for a partition case but withdrew due to lack of documentation from Cariño. This difference in claims led to a formal complaint against De los Reyes for inexcusable negligence. The central legal question was whether De los Reyes neglected his duties as a lawyer, thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially dismissed the complaint, citing insufficient evidence. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the detailed account provided by Cariño regarding the circumstances of her engagement with De los Reyes. Cariño presented a timeline of events, including meetings, assurances, and eventual unresponsiveness from De los Reyes, which painted a picture of neglect. The Court found De los Reyes’s explanation that he was hired for a partition case unconvincing, given the timing of the engagement shortly after the incidents that prompted the criminal complaints. The Supreme Court considered that it was improbable that Cariño would hire De los Reyes for an unrelated matter at such a critical time. The Court gave credence to Cariño’s detailed account of events, which outlined a clear pattern of neglect and unfulfilled promises by De los Reyes.

Moreover, the Court noted that De los Reyes failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter Cariño’s claims. He could have presented affidavits from his wife or Lily Jodloman to corroborate his version of events, but he did not. The Supreme Court referenced Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which explicitly states:

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

The Court emphasized that De los Reyes’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of a lawyer. His attempt to evade responsibility further aggravated the situation. The Court also cited Santiago v. Fojas, highlighting the duties of a lawyer once they agree to take up a client’s cause:

…once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.

The Supreme Court noted that De los Reyes’s position as a member of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline should have made him even more aware of his duties to his client. This awareness should have heightened his sense of responsibility and diligence in handling Cariño’s case. The Court acknowledged that De los Reyes returned the acceptance fee, but clarified that this did not absolve him of responsibility for his negligence. The return of the fee only served to mitigate the penalty imposed upon him.

While the Court found De los Reyes negligent, it dismissed Cariño’s claim that the failure to file the complaint for threats resulted in prescription. The Court noted that under Article 90, in relation to Article 283 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescriptive period for filing a complaint for threats is five years. Therefore, the prescriptive period had not yet lapsed when Cariño filed her complaint against De los Reyes. The Supreme Court set aside the IBP’s resolution and reprimanded De los Reyes, warning him to be more careful in fulfilling his duties to his clients. The decision serves as a reminder to all lawyers of the importance of diligence, competence, and fidelity in their professional conduct. This standard ensures that clients receive the representation they deserve and that the legal profession maintains the public’s trust.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. De los Reyes neglected his professional duties to his client, Ms. Cariño, by failing to file the agreed-upon complaints, thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What did Ms. Cariño allege against Atty. De los Reyes?	Ms. Cariño alleged that she hired Atty. De los Reyes to file complaints for slander, threats, and physical injuries but, despite payment and repeated demands, he failed to file the necessary documents with the prosecutor’s office.
What was Atty. De los Reyes’s defense?	Atty. De los Reyes claimed that he was hired to file a case for partition, not for criminal complaints, and that he withdrew from the case and returned the acceptance fee because Ms. Cariño did not provide the necessary documents.
How did the IBP initially rule on the complaint?	The IBP initially dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, finding that Ms. Cariño’s evidence was inadequate to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of Atty. De los Reyes.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court reversed the IBP’s decision, finding Atty. De los Reyes negligent in his duties and reprimanding him with a warning to be more careful in the performance of his duties to clients.
Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the IBP’s findings?	The Supreme Court found Ms. Cariño’s detailed account of the engagement more credible and noted that Atty. De los Reyes failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter her claims of neglect.
Did the return of the acceptance fee affect the Supreme Court’s decision?	The return of the acceptance fee did not absolve Atty. De los Reyes of responsibility, but it was considered as a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate penalty.
What is the significance of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in this case?	Rule 18.03 states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable, which was a key basis for the Supreme Court’s finding of negligence against Atty. De los Reyes.
What was the consequence for Atty. De los Reyes?	Atty. De los Reyes was reprimanded by the Supreme Court and warned to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients, emphasizing the importance of diligence and fidelity in legal practice.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to attorneys about the importance of upholding their duties to clients with diligence and fidelity. It reinforces that negligence in handling entrusted legal matters can lead to disciplinary action, regardless of whether fees are returned. This ruling contributes to maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring client trust.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: KATRINA JOAQUIN CARINO VS. ATTY. ARTURO DE LOS REYES, A.C. No. 4982, August 09, 2001