AC 5647; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 5647 December 15, 2005
Josephine Caranay, Complainant, vs. Atty. Ernesto P. Tabara, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Josephine Caranay retained the services of respondent Atty. Ernesto Tabara in October 2000 for a collection suit, paying him a retainer’s fee of ₱25,000. According to the complainant, the respondent failed to take any legal action over a considerable period. Consequently, she demanded the return of the fee, but the respondent refused, prompting her to file this disbarment complaint for neglect of duty and willful infidelity. The respondent admitted receiving the amount but claimed it was for legal expenses and filing fees. He alleged he prepared a complaint draft, which was given to the complainant’s aide, Tito Ochave, for review. Ochave allegedly never returned the documents and later informed him that the complainant had hired another lawyer. The respondent stated he was willing to refund the money but required either a personal discussion with the complainant or proof of Ochave’s special authority to receive it.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Ernesto Tabara should be held administratively liable for failing to perform agreed legal services and refusing to return the acceptance fee.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially found that the respondent failed to render legal services commensurate with the fee received and recommended a three-month suspension unless he submitted proof of refund. The Supreme Court referred the case back to the IBP to allow the respondent this opportunity. The respondent subsequently submitted a handwritten receipt for ₱25,000, duly signed by the complainant, which the Court found to be genuine based on a comparison with the signature on the complaint. This receipt constituted satisfactory compliance with the refund requirement mandated by the IBP. Consequently, the administrative case was terminated. The legal logic is clear: the core grievance was the failure to return an unearned fee. Once the respondent presented credible evidence of restitution, the primary ground for disciplinary action was extinguished, warranting the dismissal of the case.