A.C. No. 6238 ; November 04, 2004
Linda Villariasa-Riesenbeck, complainant, vs. Atty. Jaynes C. Abarrientos, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Linda Villariasa-Riesenbeck engaged respondent Atty. Jaynes C. Abarrientos to handle her appeal before the Court of Appeals. After an adverse decision, she paid him P5,000 to prepare a Motion for Reconsideration and subsequently paid another P5,000 in advance for a potential Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. Respondent received the denial of the motion on April 18, 2000. Despite complainant’s repeated visits and inquiries in May and June 2000, respondent failed to inform her of this denial. He instead gave assurances that a petition was being prepared. It was only on July 4, 2000, that respondent revealed the appeal period had already lapsed.
Respondent denied negligence, claiming he attempted to contact complainant after receiving the denial but she was unreachable. He asserted his obligation was limited to filing the Motion for Reconsideration and that he had advised against a futile appeal. He denied agreeing to file the petition or instructing her to go to Manila for case documents.

ISSUE

Whether respondent violated his professional duties through negligence and misconduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent liable for serious misconduct and negligence. The legal logic centers on the violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate a lawyer’s duty to serve a client with competence and diligence and to keep the client informed of case developments. The Court gave greater credence to complainant’s detailed narrative, supported by a joint affidavit from her landlady and housemaid contradicting respondent’s claim of attempted contact. The official receipts indicated an agreement encompassing services for the Petition for Review, contradicting respondent’s claim of a limited engagement. His failure to notify complainant of the denial of her motion, which directly caused the lapse of her appeal period, constituted gross negligence and a breach of fiduciary duty. His subsequent deceitful assurances further demonstrated a lack of candor.
The Court upheld the IBP’s recommendation, suspending respondent from the practice of law for four months. It also ordered him to refund the P5,000 intended for the unfiled petition, as the condition for its payment—the filing of the petition—was never fulfilled. The refund is equitable, as the fee was advanced for a service never rendered due to his negligence.