AC 10244; (March, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10244. March 12, 2018. REMIGIO P. SEGOVIA, JR., ET AL., Complainants, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO S. JAVIER, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rolando S. Javier for a case involving falsification of documents and recovery of property. They paid him the amount of ₱30,000.00 as filing fees and later discovered he had also demanded an additional ₱27,000.00 from a relative in connection with the same case. Despite repeated follow-ups and respondent’s assurances that he would file the case within the week and that it would be resolved in their favor, he never filed the case.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline issued notices for mandatory conference and required the submission of position papers. Respondent failed to appear at the mandatory conference and did not file his answer or position paper. The Investigating Commissioner found the complaint meritorious based on the uncontested allegations.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Rolando S. Javier violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings and suspended the respondent. The acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship, giving rise to a fiduciary duty of fidelity, competence, and diligence. By accepting the ₱30,000.00 specifically for filing fees and then failing to file the case despite demands, respondent violated Canon 16 (requiring a lawyer to hold client funds in trust and deliver them upon demand) and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him).
The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty commences upon retainer. Respondent’s inaction, despite follow-ups and his own assurances, demonstrated appalling indifference and cavalier attitude, degrading the legal profession. His failure to participate in the disciplinary proceedings was construed as a waiver of his right to contest the allegations. The one-year suspension was deemed appropriate. Furthermore, while disciplinary proceedings primarily determine administrative liability, the Court ordered the restitution of the ₱30,000.00 with legal interest, as the amount was received in connection with the professional engagement and its intended purpose was never fulfilled.