G.R. No. 6196 ; March 17, 2004
Rosario H. Mejares, complainant, vs. Atty. Daniel T. Romana, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rosario Mejares, a member of a labor union, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Daniel Romana for gross negligence and misconduct. The union retained Romana as counsel for an illegal termination case against their employer, with an agreed attorney’s fee of 10% of any recovery. In 1997, Romana had the union president sign a “Verification” document that surreptitiously increased his fee to 30%. When union members objected, Romana allegedly abandoned their case pending at the Court of Appeals. He received an adverse decision in December 2000 but failed to timely inform the union or file a motion for reconsideration, resulting in the denial of a belated motion filed by new counsel. Romana later withdrew as counsel.
In the IBP proceedings, Romana moved to dismiss, arguing complainant lacked authority and submitting an affidavit from the union president supporting him. Complainant opposed, presenting a retraction affidavit from the same president, who claimed her prior affidavit was signed without reading and corroborated complainant’s allegations of fund misappropriation and negligence. Romana failed to appear at hearings and did not substantively address the charges.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Daniel Romana is administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 (requiring a lawyer to account for all client funds) and Rule 18.04 (requiring a lawyer to keep the client informed of case status) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court upheld the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that when a lawyer’s integrity is challenged, mere denial is insufficient; the lawyer must overcome the evidence against him. Romana’s failure to appear at hearings and his reliance solely on technical defenses, without substantively refuting the serious allegations of negligence, misrepresentation on fees, and failure to account for union funds, constituted a failure to meet this burden. The retraction affidavit and supporting statements credibly established that he did not properly explain the fee increase document and neglected his duty to inform the client of a critical decision, causing prejudice. However, considering the circumstances, the penalty of disbarment was deemed too severe. The Court modified the IBP’s recommendation and suspended Romana from the practice of law for six months, also ordering him to render an accounting of all funds received from the union.