G.R. No. A.M. No. 1288 July 29, 1974
Floraida Banares, complainant, vs. Atty. Rosalino C. Barican, respondent.

FACTS

Floraida Lopez de Banares filed a verified complaint accusing Atty. Rosalino C. Barican of abandoning her habeas corpus case (Special Proceeding 7500, CFI Rizal) for the custody of her minor children. She alleged that after filing the petition, the respondent failed to appear at subsequent hearings, leading to the case’s dismissal on November 7, 1973. In his sworn comment, Atty. Barican presented a different narrative. He stated that the complainant’s mother, Percida Vasquez, initially engaged his services, not the complainant herself, due to a related claim against a bus company. He explained that after the initial hearing, the complainant’s common-law husband objected to his representation. Consequently, he advised the complainant to secure another lawyer if necessary, with an agreement that she would notify him before the next hearing date. He further alleged that the complainant’s mother later informed him twice that his services were terminated, as they had already retained another lawyer, Atty. Fortaleza.
In her reply, the complainant denied soliciting the respondent’s services, claiming he volunteered. She admitted receiving cash advances from the bus company through the respondent but alleged he later became indifferent after she rejected his alleged improper advances. The respondent filed a rejoinder, denying these new allegations and reiterating that the complainant and her mother had dismissed him as counsel.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rosalino C. Barican is administratively liable for abandoning his client’s case.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The ruling hinged on the application of procedural rules regarding admissions by failure to make a specific denial. The Court meticulously compared the material allegations in the respondent’s comment with the complainant’s subsequent replies. It found that the complainant evaded or failed to categorically deny the respondent’s key assertions: that her mother engaged his services; that there was an agreement for her to notify him after consulting her common-law husband; that she failed to submit promised hospital documents; and, crucially, that her mother informed him twice of his termination as counsel. Under the rules, an allegation not specifically denied is deemed admitted.
Therefore, the complainant’s non-categorical statements constituted an admission that she, through her mother, had dismissed the respondent as her lawyer before the subsequent hearings. The chain of events established that the respondent’s non-appearance was a consequence of his lawful discharge by the client, not a voluntary abandonment. Since abandonment requires a lawyer’s unilateral and unjustified withdrawal, and the facts demonstrated a discharge by the client, no administrative liability for abandonment attached. The charge was deemed unsubstantiated.