AC 12063; (January, 2019) (Digest)
A.C. No. 12063. January 08, 2019
Everdina C. Angeles, Complainant, vs. Atty. Wilfredo B. Lina-ac, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Everdina C. Angeles engaged the services of respondent Atty. Wilfredo B. Lina-ac in February 2010 to file a petition for the nullity of her marriage, paying him a total of P50,000.00. Despite repeated follow-ups, Atty. Lina-ac only provided her in October 2010 a copy of a complaint bearing a fake court stamp and a non-existent docket number. In May 2011, Angeles discovered that no petition had ever been filed. Atty. Lina-ac admitted his failure and agreed to return the money and sever their relationship.
Contrary to this agreement, Atty. Lina-ac subsequently filed a petition in June 2011 without Angeles’s consent. This second petition was eventually dismissed due to procedural deficiencies, including the failure to submit a required affidavit from Angeles. Angeles then filed administrative and criminal complaints. During the IBP proceedings, Atty. Lina-ac, citing health reasons, failed to appear at mandatory conferences and denied any fraudulent intent, claiming the first document was merely a draft.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Lina-ac should be held administratively liable for his actions in handling his client’s case.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Lina-ac is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that his failure to file the petition for over a year, despite receiving full payment, constituted gross negligence and a blatant violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. His act of fabricating a court-stamped complaint to deceive his client into believing the case was filed was an act of dishonesty and deceit, which grossly misconducts him as a member of the Bar.
The Court rejected his defenses, noting that his subsequent filing of a petition did not absolve him from his initial deceit and negligence, especially as it was done without consent after the relationship was terminated. While disbarment was considered, the Court, considering his advanced age, tempered justice with mercy. The Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law and ordered him to return the P50,000.00 to Angeles with 6% annual interest from the finality of the resolution until fully paid. This penalty underscores that the practice of law is a privilege demanding the highest standards of integrity and competence.