Consorcia Rollon vs. Atty. Camilo Naraval 425 SCRA 675 FACTS: In October 2000, petitioner Rollon went to seek Atty. Naraval’s assistance in a case filed against him before the Municipal Trial Court for collection of sum of money with prayer for attachment. Atty. Naraval agreed to be Rollon’s lawyer and accepted P8,000 as filing and partial service fee. A week after, Rollon’s son went to follow up with the case, only to find out that Naraval was not able to act on the case as he was so busy. In November 2001, since there was still no action on his case, Rollon decided to withdraw the amount paid to Naraval and to retrieve his documents pertaining to the case. Since Rollon did not obtain any response from Naraval, he referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Respondent did not file any answer, so the CBD proceeded with the investigation ex parte. The investigating commissioner of the CBD recommended that Naraval be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year for violation of Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The report indicated that Naraval caused dishonor to the bar when he accepted service fee and filing fee payment from Rollon but failed to act on his case. He also failed to appraise Rollon of the status of his case, which was later found by the latter to have been decided with finality against him. The IBP upheld the CBD’s report and recommended for Naraval’s suspension for 2 years and restitution of the P8,000.00 received from complainant. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Naraval’s acts warrant his suspension from the practice of law. HELD: The Supreme Court agreed to the IBP’s resolution on the following grounds: 1. Respondent violated Rule 15.05 of the CPR, which provides that “A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case.” Respondent demanded payment of filing fee and service fee from complainant, giving the latter hope that her case would be acted upon. But such hope later turned out to be false when respondent did nothing to act on the case. A lawyer is ordinarily not obliged to act as adviser of any person. He may decline employment if he is not in a position to handle the case competently. But once he agrees to handle a case, as exhibited from respondent’s acceptance of money from the complainant, attorneyclient relationship is established and the attorney is abound to undertake the task with utmost devotion until its termination. 2. Respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which provides that “A lawyer shall hold in trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” Despite repeated demands, respondent failed to return the files of the case to complainant for no justifiable reason and even kept the latter’s money instead of returning it, thereby reflecting his moral unsoundness. As he did not act on the case, respondent’s failure to return complainant’s money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had converted it to his own use, betraying the trust reposed in him. 3. Respondent violated Canon 17 of the CPR, which provides that “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him” and Canon 18 of the CPR, which provides that “A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.” Naraval exhibited incompetence and neglect of duty when after receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, he failed to render any legal service to the complainant. It was respondent’s duty as a lawyer to appraise complainant on the status of his case. It turned out that complainant’s case had long been decided with finality against him. Instead of advancing the complainant’s cause by informing him of the status of his case, respondent withheld such vital information to the detriment of complainant. The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Naraval from the practice of law for 2 years and ordered him to restitute, within 30 days from notice, complainant’s P8,000, plus interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum until fully paid.
