G.R. No. A.C. No. 5835; April 15, 2005
Carlos B. Reyes, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Carlos B. Reyes engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan in June 2001 to file a case against his sister-in-law and niece for their refusal to comply with a court decision ordering the partition of family properties. Reyes paid Vitan the amount of P17,000.00 as acceptance fee. Despite receiving payment and establishing an attorney-client relationship, Atty. Vitan failed to take any action on the case entrusted to him. He did not file the appropriate complaint or charge.
The complaint for disbarment based on gross negligence was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. During the IBP proceedings, respondent ignored several orders to file his answer and failed to submit any responsive pleadings. He merely sent his secretary to represent him. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that the draft complaint submitted as evidence was unsigned, lacked essential details like a case number, and showed no proof of filing, rendering it a mere scrap of paper.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is administratively liable for gross negligence and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to perform the legal services he was paid to render.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. By accepting the P17,000.00 fee, Atty. Vitan entered into an attorney-client relationship, covenanting to serve his client with competence, diligence, and fidelity. His complete inaction constitutes a clear violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. His negligence rendered him liable.
The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty involves entire devotion to the client’s cause and zealous defense of his rights. Vitan’s failure to exercise due diligence made him unworthy of the trust reposed in him. Furthermore, his disregard of IBP orders demonstrated disrespect for authority and unethical conduct. However, the Court found the IBP’s recommended two-year suspension too harsh. Citing analogous cases like Sencio vs. Calvadores, where a lawyer similarly neglected a case and failed to return the fee, the Court imposed a lighter sanction. Respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and ORDERED to return to complainant the amount of P17,000.00 with 12% interest per annum from the date of the Decision’s promulgation until fully paid.