G.R. No. A.C. 5655. January 23, 2006.
VALERIANA U. DALISAY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Valeriana Dalisay engaged the services of respondent Atty. Melanio Mauricio, Jr. on October 13, 2001, for Civil Case No. 00-044 pending before the MTC of Binangonan, Rizal. She paid him attorney’s fees totaling P56,000.00 and provided case documents. Respondent, however, failed to render any legal service, did not enter his appearance, and prepared no pleadings. Upon termination of the engagement, he refused to return the money and documents. The IBP found that respondent performed no substantive work for the fee received. This Court, in a Decision dated April 22, 2005, found him guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him from law practice for six months.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing he was hired not for the existing civil case but to file two new petitions, which complainant prevented by withholding necessary documents. He further contended that the civil case was already submitted for decision when he was engaged. He also revealed that, after learning of the Court’s Decision, he verified the case status and discovered complainant had allegedly submitted falsified evidence, prompting him to file criminal complaints against her for falsification.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its Decision finding Atty. Mauricio guilty of professional misconduct.

RULING

The motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court found respondent’s new arguments to be a belated and disingenuous attempt to evade liability. An attorney-client relationship was established upon his acceptance of the P56,000.00 fee, obligating him to serve with competence and diligence. His current denial of being engaged for Civil Case No. 00-044 is contradicted by his own prior Verified Comment, where he explicitly discussed being referred to handle that specific case and giving professional opinions concerning it. He is bound by these judicial admissions.
His failure to perform any legal service constitutes a clear breach of his fiduciary duty. The filing of criminal charges against his own client, based on information ostensibly gleaned from the case for which he was retained, compounds his misconduct by violating the duty of loyalty and confidentiality. His new defenses, raised only in his motion for reconsideration, cannot be entertained as they were not presented during the proceedings below. The penalty of suspension stands as a necessary sanction for his gross neglect and betrayal of professional ethics.