DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA
AC No. 99-634 June 10, 2002
Facts:
1. Petitioner, in connection with his business was introduced to respondent, who agreed to legally represent him in a money claim and possible civil case against certain parties for breach of contract.
2. Respondent prepared a demand letter and some other legal papers, for which services the petitioner paid.
3. However, the parties failed to secure settlement then respondent suggested that the petitioner will file the necessary complaint, which he subsequently drafted and respondent required the amount of 25,000 as filing fee.
4. A week later the petitioner was informed by respondent that a complaint had already been filed in court, and that he will receive a notice of its progress
5. In the months that followed, there is no such notice. That the petitioner frequently visited his office to inquire and respondent would repeatedly tell him to just wait
6. Petitioner then decided to go to the Office of the Clerk of Court with the draft of Atty. Magulta's complaint to personally verify the progress of the case, and there told that there was no record at all of a case filed by Atty. Alberto C. Magulta.
Issues:
· Whether or not respondent should be disciplined due to this non-filing of the Complaint on behalf of his client and his appropriation for himself of the money given for the filing fee
· Whether or not there is attorney client relationship
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
· Respondent wants the Court to believe that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant, because the latter never paid him for services rendered. The former adds that he only drafted the said documents as a personal favor for the kumpadre of one of his partners.
The court disagrees. A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the former's business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service had been sought.
If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employment is established.
despite the fact that complainant was kumpadre of a law partner of respondent, and that respondent dispensed legal advice to complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre, the lawyer was duty-bound to file the complaint he had agreed to prepare -- and had actually prepared -- at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the client's interest. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them.
· Failure to apply the filing fee
In failing to apply to the filing fee the amount given by complainant -- as evidenced by the receipt issued by the law office of respondent -- the latter also violated the rule that lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to them in their professional capacity. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their possession.
It may be true that they have a lien upon the client's funds, documents and other papers that have lawfully come into their possession; that they may retain them until their lawful fees and disbursements have been paid; and that they may apply such funds to the satisfaction of such fees and disbursements. However, these considerations do not relieve them of their duty to promptly account for the moneys they received. Their failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. In any event, they must still exert all effort to protect their client's interest within the bounds of law.
Penalty: Suspended for a period of one year
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment