A.C. No. 5574; February 1, 2002
Teodolfo Reyes, complainant, vs. Atty. Rolando Javier, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Teodolfo Reyes engaged the services of Atty. Rolando Javier in February 1998 to handle the annulment of his marriage, paying P22,500.00 with an agreement that the petition would be filed in March 1998. Throughout 1998, whenever Reyes inquired about the case, Javier repeatedly assured him it was already filed and would be resolved soon, offering excuses for not providing a copy. In September 1998, Javier finally furnished a copy of the petition stamped as received by the court on March 2, 1998.
Suspicious of the lack of progress, Reyes personally verified at the Clerk of Court and discovered the petition was actually filed only on September 2, 1998. Confronted, Javier offered no valid explanation. Reyes then terminated Javier’s services and demanded a partial refund of P10,000.00, which Javier promised but failed to deliver. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) required Javier to comment on the complaint for negligence and deceit, but he failed to file an answer or appear at the scheduled hearing despite notice.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rolando Javier violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through negligence and deceit in handling his client’s case.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, suspending Atty. Javier for one year and ordering restitution. The Court found Javier guilty of gross misconduct for violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer-client relationship was established upon acceptance of the fee. Javier breached Rule 18.03 by neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him, failing to file the petition as agreed for six months. He further violated Rule 18.04 by not keeping his client informed and by actively deceiving Reyes, falsely representing that the petition was filed in March and providing a document bearing a falsified receipt date. This deceit compounded the initial neglect. His subsequent failure to refund the promised amount, coupled with his disregard of IBP proceedings by not filing an answer or attending hearings, demonstrated a pattern of unethical conduct. The Court emphasized the duty of lawyers to uphold the profession’s integrity and maintain client trust, which Javier egregiously failed to do. The one-year suspension and order to pay P10,000.00 to Reyes were imposed as penalty.