A.C. No. 6121; July 31, 2009
Trinidad H. Camara, Complainant, vs. Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes, Respondent.

FACTS

In 2003, complainant Trinidad H. Camara hired respondent Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes to handle her case, paying him a partial acceptance fee of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00). This payment was evidenced by a receipt handwritten by the respondent on his own calling card. Despite receiving the fee, respondent took no action whatsoever to protect the complainant’s legal interests. When complainant, having received no legal service, requested the return of the money for house repairs, respondent offered to oversee the repairs himself but again failed to fulfill this promise. Following his continued inaction and failure to refund the money, complainant initiated this disbarment case.
In his Answer, respondent did not deny the allegations. He merely prayed for the dismissal of the case, claiming the matter had been resolved with the complainant, who allegedly signed the complaint under the mistaken belief it was against a neighbor. Both parties failed to attend the mandatory conference and submit position papers. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable, and the IBP Board of Governors recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation and suspended respondent for six months. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, pursued for public welfare and the preservation of the integrity of the legal profession, and are not dependent on the complainant’s continued interest or any private settlement. Respondent’s acceptance of the ₱50,000.00 established an attorney-client relationship, imposing upon him the duties of competence, diligence, and fidelity.
By utterly failing to perform any legal service and subsequently neglecting to refund the money or properly account for it, respondent violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 (duty to account for client’s money) and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 (prohibition against neglecting a legal matter) and 18.04 (duty to keep client informed) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His defense of an alleged compromise and complainant’s desistance were immaterial and could not exonerate him, as he presented no countervailing evidence to refute the substantive charges. His inaction constituted a betrayal of the trust reposed in him as a lawyer, eroding public confidence in the legal profession. The penalty of six-month suspension is consistent with precedents involving similar neglect after receiving acceptance fees.