G.R. No. A.C. No. 6056. September 9, 2015.
FELICISIMA MENDOZA Vda. DE ROBOSA, Complainant, vs. Attys. JUAN B. MENDOZA and EUSEBIO P. NAVARRO, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Felicisima Mendoza Vda. De Robosa, along with her siblings, engaged their relative, Atty. Juan B. Mendoza, to handle the original registration of two parcels of land left by their father. Atty. Mendoza prepared and notarized a Special Power of Attorney in their favor. On February 20, 1993, Atty. Mendoza had Felicisima sign a “Contract for Service,” written in English, which stipulated that in the event of a favorable resolution from the land authorities, Felicisima shall convey to Atty. Mendoza one-fifth (1/5) of the lands or proceeds from a sale. Felicisima, who claims illiteracy, alleges Atty. Mendoza told her the document was to shield her from future claims by her siblings and that she was not given a copy. The application was partially granted for one lot, which was later sold. Atty. Mendoza filed a collection case (Civil Case No. T-1080) to enforce the Contract for Service after the heirs refused to pay his claimed fees. The RTC ruled in favor of Atty. Mendoza. Felicisima and her siblings hired Atty. Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr. to handle the defense and appeal. Atty. Navarro filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to file an appellant’s brief before the Court of Appeals, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. He also failed to file an opposition to Atty. Mendoza’s motion for execution pending appeal in the RTC, leading to the levy and sale of Felicisima’s properties. Felicisima filed this disbarment complaint against Atty. Mendoza for deceit and against Atty. Navarro for negligence.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Juan B. Mendoza and Atty. Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr. should be held administratively liable for their respective acts in their professional dealings with complainant.

RULING

The Court found both respondents administratively liable.
1. As to Atty. Juan B. Mendoza: He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR. The Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that Atty. Mendoza violated Canon 17 (a lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause) and Rule 20.04, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud). The Court found that Atty. Mendoza, as a relative and counsel, took advantage of Felicisima’s ignorance and illiteracy by having her sign the Contract for Service without ensuring she understood its contents, which provided for a contingent fee of 1/5 of the property. His act of filing a lawsuit to collect this fee, under the circumstances, constituted an abuse of trust and confidence.
2. As to Atty. Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr.: He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS. The Court found him guilty of negligence and abandonment of his client’s cause, in violation of Canon 18 (a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence). His failure to file the required appellant’s brief, which led to the dismissal of the appeal, and his failure to oppose the motion for execution pending appeal, which resulted in the loss of his client’s properties, constituted gross negligence and dereliction of duty. His excuse of being preoccupied with other cases is unacceptable.