G.R. No. 10713 . September 08, 2020.
Bryce Russel Mitchell, Complainant, vs. Atty. Juan Paolo F. Amistoso, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bryce Russel Mitchell engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Juan Paolo F. Amistoso for an annulment case, agreeing to a professional fee of P650,000. During the pendency of the case, complainant gave Atty. Amistoso a total of P800,000, exceeding the agreed fee, and later loaned him an additional P65,000 as evidenced by a promissory note. Subsequently, Atty. Amistoso ceased all communication, failed to attend scheduled court hearings, and abandoned the case, forcing complainant to hire a new collaborating counsel.
The Supreme Court required Atty. Amistoso to comment on the administrative complaint, but he failed to file any response despite receipt of notices. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which scheduled mandatory conferences. Atty. Amistoso repeatedly failed to appear. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a two-year suspension, a P10,000 fine, and an order to return P865,000 to the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Amistoso should be held administratively liable for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Amistoso is administratively liable. His failure to file a comment or participate in the proceedings despite numerous opportunities constitutes an implied admission of the charges under the principle qui facet consentire videtur (silence gives consent). Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, intended to protect the public and determine a lawyer’s fitness to remain in the profession, and thus proceed regardless of a respondent’s non-cooperation.
The Court found Atty. Amistoso violated his duties under Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 17 requires a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence. By abandoning the annulment case, failing to attend hearings, and cutting off communication, he betrayed his client’s trust and neglected his duty. Canon 18 mandates a lawyer to serve a client with utmost dedication. His complete disappearance left his client’s cause in jeopardy, demonstrating a lack of dedication. Rule 16.04 prohibits a lawyer from borrowing money from a client unless the client’s interests are fully protected. The P65,000 loan, obtained due to the lawyer’s financial difficulties, violated this rule as there was no showing the client’s interests were protected by independent advice.
The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. Atty. Amistoso is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years. However, the Court cannot order the return of the P65,000 loan in this disciplinary proceeding, as its primary purpose is to determine fitness for the profession, not to adjudicate civil liabilities arising from separate transactions. The order for restitution was set aside. He is warned that repetition will be dealt with more severely.