G.R. No. A.C. No. 6934. April 6, 2016.
HELEN CHANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Helen Chang engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo as legal counsel for several collection cases. Pursuant to their contract, Chang issued checks totaling ₱52,000.00 and paid an additional ₱9,500.00 as a “hearing fee,” amounting to ₱61,500.00 in total attorney’s fees. Chang alleged that despite receiving payment, Atty. Hidalgo failed to attend any hearings and instead sent another lawyer without her consent, resulting in the dismissal of the cases. She filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct.
Atty. Hidalgo initially avoided service of court notices. When he finally submitted a handwritten, unverified Comment, he admitted being retained and receiving fees but claimed he attended hearings and did not authorize another lawyer to appear. He attributed his withdrawal from the cases to Chang’s “transigient and uncooperative” attitude, his illness, and impoverished state. During mandatory conferences at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), only Chang appeared; Atty. Hidalgo failed to attend despite notice. In a Motion for Reconsideration, he admitted receiving the fees but argued he was entitled to them for his preparatory work and claimed he filed a Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel, though he provided no proof of its filing or granting by the courts.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is guilty of gross misconduct for failing to render legal services despite receipt of payment, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Hidalgo is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, which found him liable for violating Canons 17, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that a lawyer cannot withdraw from a case without notice to the client and compliance with the procedural requirements under Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. Atty. Hidalgo failed to prove he performed any substantial legal service, attended hearings, or properly withdrew from the cases. His unsubstantiated claims and repeated failure to participate in the administrative proceedings demonstrated a disregard for his duties. The Court upheld the modified penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors: suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year and an order to return the amount of ₱61,500.00 to complainant Helen Chang within thirty (30) days from notice, with legal interest from the time of demand.