AC 9176; (December, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 9176, December 05, 2019
Agustin Aboy, Sr., Complainant, vs. Atty. Leo B. Diocos, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Agustin Aboy, Sr., alleging to be the President of holders of a winning Pepsi Cola promo code, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Leo B. Diocos for estafa, abuse of power, and administrative connivance. Atty. Diocos was hired as counsel for the cap holders in a case against Pepsi Cola Company. Complainant alleged that Atty. Diocos collected P150.00 from each member and that after the case was dismissed by Judge Winston Villegas on November 7, 2007, both the judge and Atty. Diocos refused to provide a copy of the order unless P90,000.00 was produced for an appeal. Complainant further alleged discovering that the dismissal was initially for non-payment of docket fees, but later the ground was changed to absence of cause of action, suggesting connivance. Atty. Diocos, in his Comment, admitted being engaged as counsel but denied collecting the P150.00 fee and denied complainant’s authority. He contended he provided a copy of the Decision, was not obligated to furnish copies to all clients, and could not withdraw as the case was terminated. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors recommended a three-month suspension for negligence.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Atty. Leo B. Diocos should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, respondent Atty. Leo B. Diocos is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that while the complainant failed to substantiate the allegations of fee collection and the existence of two decision versions with clear evidence, Atty. Diocos violated his professional duties. The Court adopted the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. Atty. Diocos neglected his duty of diligence and communication under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He allowed the period to appeal the dismissal of his clients’ case to lapse without properly informing them of the dismissal, the reasons for it, and their legal options. A lawyer must keep the client informed and cannot neglect a legal matter, regardless of the non-payment of fees. For violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18, Atty. Diocos was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, with a stern warning.