AC 1370; (April, 1997) (Digest)
A.C. No. 1370. April 18, 1997. ABDUL A. SATTAR, complainant, vs. ATTY. PERCIVAL LOPEZ, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Abdul A. Sattar engaged the services of respondent Atty. Percival Lopez on November 16, 1973, to prepare and file an appeal brief before the Court of Appeals, following his criminal conviction. Sattar paid Lopez a P200 retaining fee and P1,500 for printing, with a promise of an additional P1,500 upon acquittal. He also gave P120, allegedly for liquor for a court employee or, as Lopez claimed, for expenses to explore reviving the appeal. Unbeknownst to Lopez at the time of the agreement, the Court of Appeals had already dismissed Sattar’s appeal on November 9, 1973, for failure to file the brief. Sattar informed Lopez of the dismissal only in January 1974. Lopez asserted that his acceptance was conditional on Sattar furnishing the case records, which Sattar failed to do, and that the records were with the Solicitor General for nearly a year.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Percival Lopez should be held administratively liable for negligence and failure to render legal services in connection with the dismissed appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint and exonerated Atty. Lopez. The Court found no basis to hold him liable for negligence. The legal logic centered on the scope of his engagement and the timeline of events. Lopez was hired under a special retainer specifically to prepare and file an appeal brief. Critically, the appeal had already been dismissed by the Court of Appeals a week before the contract was signed, a fact Sattar concealed from Lopez until months later. Lopez could not have performed the contracted service for an appeal that no longer existed. The Court also clarified that Atty. Calvario remained the counsel of record in the appellate court, as there was no formal withdrawal of appearance. Thus, the primary duty to file the brief and monitor the appeal’s status rested with Calvario, not Lopez. Regarding the payments, the Court found the total of P320 (P200 retaining fee and P120 for expenses) not unconscionable, as Lopez had devoted time and effort to consultations and researching the possibility of reviving the dismissed appeal. Therefore, no ethical breach or negligence was attributable to the respondent.