In the case of Marissa L. Macarilay v. Felix B. Seriña, the Supreme Court addressed a lawyer’s failure to provide agreed legal services after receiving payment and misrepresenting the status of a case. The Court ruled that Atty. Felix B. Seriña violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting his client’s matter, deceiving her about the case’s progress, and failing to return unearned fees. This decision emphasizes the high standard of conduct required of lawyers and reinforces their duty to act with competence, diligence, and honesty towards their clients. The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Seriña from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return the unearned fees with interest, reaffirming the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and protecting clients from misconduct.

Breach of Trust: When a Lawyer Fails to Deliver on Promises

Marissa L. Macarilay filed a complaint against Atty. Felix B. Seriña for malpractice and gross misconduct. The dispute arose after Macarilay paid Seriña a total of P48,000 for legal services related to a property issue, including an acceptance fee of P20,000 and additional amounts for filing fees. However, Seriña failed to file the necessary complaints and misled Macarilay by claiming the case was pending in court. Macarilay, upon discovering that no case had been filed, terminated Seriña’s services and demanded the return of the unearned fees.

Seriña denied the allegations, claiming he had prepared the complaints but Macarilay refused to sign them due to an incorrect address for the defendant. He further argued that Macarilay owed him additional fees for other legal advice provided. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) investigated the matter and found Seriña liable for violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP board of governors adopted the CBD’s recommendation, suspending Seriña from the practice of law for six months and ordering him to restitute P40,000 to Macarilay.

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship and the high standard of conduct expected of lawyers. According to the Court, lawyers must be candid, fair, and loyal in all dealings with their clients. They should also act with competence and diligence. The Court pointed to the lawyer’s oath where lawyers pledge not to delay any person for money or malice, and to conduct themselves with all good fidelity to their clients. These duties are stressed in the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states:

CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.

CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

The Court found that Seriña had been less than candid in his dealings with Macarilay. It pointed to several specific actions that included receiving money for filing fees but not filing the cases, deceiving the client about the status of the case, and refusing to return the money he had received for filing fees. The court determined that these actions violated his oath and the ethical standards expected of members of the bar.

Seriña’s claim that the complaints were not filed due to Macarilay’s failure to provide the defendant’s correct address was also dismissed by the Court. The Court pointed out that lack of knowledge about the address should not prevent the filing of a complaint because the Rules of Court provide remedies when a defendant’s address is unknown. The Court reasoned that even without an address, he should have filed the complaints, because he already had the payment for it from the client.

Furthermore, the Court held that Seriña should have returned the unearned fees to Macarilay. It reasoned that because a lawyer who receives money for a specific purpose should return it immediately if he is unable to fulfill that purpose. The unjustified withholding of the funds warranted disciplinary action against Seriña.

In sum, the Court noted the following legal precedent: “Where the client gives money to the lawyer for a specific purpose — such as to file an action or to appeal an adverse judgment — the latter should, upon failure to do so, immediately return it to the former.” The Court, therefore, upheld the IBP’s decision to suspend Seriña from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to restitute the unearned fees with legal interest.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Seriña violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to provide agreed legal services, misrepresenting the status of the case, and failing to return unearned fees to his client, Macarilay.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Seriña guilty of violating Canons 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return P40,000 to Macarilay with interest.
What is the lawyer’s duty regarding client funds?	A lawyer must hold client funds in trust and deliver them when due or upon demand. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What should a lawyer do if they cannot fulfill an agreed legal service?	A lawyer should promptly inform the client and return any unearned fees. Withholding such funds is a breach of ethical standards and can lead to disciplinary action.
Can a lawyer shift the blame to the client for failing to file a case?	No, a lawyer cannot shift the blame to the client for failing to file a case, especially when the lawyer has already received payment for filing fees and has not returned the funds.
What are the consequences of neglecting a client’s legal matter?	Neglecting a client’s legal matter can result in disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law, as well as an order to restitute any unearned fees.
What ethical rules did Atty. Seriña violate?	Atty. Seriña violated Canons 15 (candor and fairness), 16 (trust of client funds), 17 (fidelity to the client’s cause), and 18 (competence and diligence) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What is the significance of the lawyer-client relationship?	The lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary, demanding utmost fidelity, candor, fairness, and good faith. Lawyers must protect the interests of their clients with diligence and competence.

This case underscores the importance of ethical conduct and diligence in the legal profession. Attorneys have a solemn duty to act in the best interests of their clients, maintaining transparency and honoring their commitments. Failure to uphold these standards can result in serious consequences, including disciplinary action and damage to their professional reputation.

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: Marissa L. Macarilay v. Felix B. Seriña, A.C. No. 6591, May 4, 2005