75. PENILLA vs. ALCID JR A.C. No.

9149 September 04, 2013

FACTS:

An administrative complaint was filed against respondent Atty. Alcid Jr for vioaltion of the Lawyer's Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for gross misconduct in the performacne of his duty as a
lawyer. This rooted when Penilla entered into an Agreement with Spouses Garin for the repair of his
Volkswagen automobile but despite payment, the spouses defaulted in their obligation. Penilla decided to
filed a case for breach of contract and engaged the service of Atty. Alcid Jr.

The respondent filed a criminal case for estafa when the fact of the case warranted the filing of a civil case
for breach of contract. After the complaint for estafa was dismissed, Atty. Alcid committed another blunder
by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed it
with the MTC due to the amount involved, that was only P36,000. Also after the criminal and civil cases
were dismissed, the respondent was plainly negligent and did not apprise complainant of the status and
progress of both cases he filed for the Penilla.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Alcid Jr violated the Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility when
dealing with his client, Penilla.

HELD:

Yes, Atty. Alcid Jr violated Canon 17, 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Alcid Jr violated his oath under Canon 18 when he filed a criminal case for estafa when
facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. The errors committed
with respect to the nature of the remedy adopted in the criminal complaint and the forum selected in the
civil complaint were so basic and could have been easily averted has Alcid been more diligent and
circumspect in his role as counsel for complainant. Furthermore, Atty. Alcid Jr violated Rules 18.03 and
18.04 when he did not also apprise complainant of the status of the cases. He paid no attention and
showed no importance to complainant's cause despite repeated follow-ups. Moreover, Atty. Alcid also
violated Canon 17 which states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.