G.R. No. A.C. No. 6591 ; May 4, 2005
MARISSA L. MACARILAY, complainant, vs. FELIX B. SERIÑA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marissa L. Macarilay engaged the services of respondent Atty. Felix B. Seriña in March 2002 to handle a case involving the transfer of a land title. She paid him an acceptance fee of P20,000.00, a notarization fee of P3,000.00, and a filing fee of P5,000.00. Subsequently, upon respondent’s advice, she issued another check for P20,000.00 as filing fees for intended suits against the seller, Albaria Mohammad. Respondent prepared and filed an affidavit of adverse claim but took no further substantive action.
Throughout 2002 and early 2003, complainant inquired about the case status. Respondent assured her a case was filed in the sala of a “Judge Regala,” but upon verification, no case—civil or criminal—was ever instituted. When complainant, through another lawyer, confronted respondent and later terminated his services, respondent denied the termination and, in a subsequent letter, deceitfully claimed he only received the P20,000.00 acceptance fee, demanding additional payment for alleged unpaid fees and advances.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Felix B. Seriña violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and his lawyer’s oath through negligence, deceit, and failure to account for and return client funds.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ findings and recommendation. The legal logic is clear: a lawyer’s failure to perform the specific services for which acceptance and other fees were paid constitutes negligence and a breach of Canon 18, which mandates diligence in fulfilling legal commitments. Respondent’s inaction—failing to file the promised suits despite receiving funds specifically for that purpose—demonstrates this neglect.
Furthermore, respondent’s deceitful conduct in falsely representing that a case was filed and later denying receipt of certain payments violates Canon 1 (upholding the law) and Rule 1.01 (prohibiting dishonest acts), constituting gross misconduct. His refusal to promptly account for and return the unutilized funds upon lawful demand breaches Canon 16 (holding client funds in trust) and Rule 16.03 (requiring prompt return of such funds). The totality of his actions, combining negligence with deceit, warranted severe discipline. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year and ordered him to return the P25,000.00 (representing the second P20,000.00 check and the P5,000.00 filing fee) to complainant, with interest.