MALANGAS v. Zaide, AC No. 10675, May 31, 2016 (En Banc), Del Castillo, J.

Facts:

Datu Ismael Malangas engaged the services of Atty. Paul M. Zaide on his complaint for
damages against Paul Alfeche and NEMA Electrical and Industrial Sales when complainant
figured in an accident while crossing Quezon Avenue, Iligan City. Two vehicles hit and pinned
him between them causing him to lose consciousness. He was confined for four months,
underwent different major operations and spent more than Php 1.5 million. He remained
crippled and bed ridden. Respondent lawyer told him that Php 50,000.00 was needed as filing
fee in order to commence a Php 5 million damage suit. Respondent filed a case on the RTC of
Iligan and furnished complainant of the copy of the complaint. Complainant later discovered
that his case was dismissed by RTC (Lanao del NOrte) for “failure to prosecute,” (1) because
lawyer did not attend two hearings on the case, (2) did not submit an Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss. Complainant asked respondent to file Motion for Reconsideration but instead,
respondent filed a Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. Complainant also discovered that the
respondent lawyer only filed a Php 250,000.00 damage suit instead of the agreed Php 5 million.

Complainant accused respondent lawyer of committing acts of dishonesty, breach of

trust, and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Respondent lawyer contended that (1) complainant was a client of his law firm and
respondent only received appearance fees in attending to the case (2) he was reluctant to ask for
even the Php 250,000.00 suit since hospital bills of complainant did not reach this amount (3) he
prayed for the amount anticipating that complainant would incur additional charges (4) the
prayer for Php 5 million was a maneuver to create the impression that he defrauded the
complainant (5) his skipping of the hearings, the no opposition to NEMA’s Motion to Dismiss
were agreed upon with his client after he discovered NEMA’s car did not hit complainant but
complainant nevertheless pursued the Php 5 million suit (6) Alfeche settled with complainant but
complainant still insisted to file the civil case against Alfeche and (7) his withdrawal was due to
his realization that complainant was acting under compulsion of greed for pursuing the case.

IBP Commission on Bar Disicipline found respondent lawyer GUILTY of dishonesty and
breach of trust, and recommended a penalty of TWO YEARS SUSPENSION on grounds that (1)
complainant’s allegations were more credible than respondent and (2) respondent lawyer was
negligent in handling the case.

Respondent lawyer moved for reconsideration and was DENIED by IBP.

Issue/s:

Whether respondent lawyer is guilty of professional misconduct and of violating the

Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

We find respondent lawyer guilty of professional misconduct and of violating Canons 1,

16, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Not only do we find complainant’s
version more credible, we also notice the glaring inconsistencies in respondent lawyer’s
allegations.

As for his claims that he is merely an associate and has no participation regarding the
fees, the respondent lawyer’s law firm belied his claim in a joint affidavit stating that the
payment of complainant to Atty. Zaide belongs to him exclusively and they had no share thereof.

Respondent lawyer’s refusal to account for the funds given to him especially the refusal
to return the excess amount paid to him for the docket fees clearly violates Rules 16.01, and
16.03 of the CPR. By his deliberate failure to file a comment or opposition to NEMA’s Motion
to Dismiss, his failure to appear in hearings, respondent lawyer unduly delayed the case as the
trial court had to postpone the hearing thereon. These failings are clearly offensive to Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR. If his claim that he and complainant had agreed to drop the case
were true, then he as an officer of the court should have saved the Court’s precious time by at
least promptly manifesting his lack of objection to dismiss. This he did not do.

Given the gravity of the offenses imputed against him, respondent lawyer’s defense that
he was a young lawyer when he went astray hardly merits sympathy from this Court.
Respondent lawyer could not have been unaware that when he tool the solemn oath to become a
member of the bar, he did so not only to enjoy the rewards and privileges but also to take upon
his shoulders the heavy burden and responsibility of a full-fledged membership in the Philippine
Bar.

Wherefore, Atty Paul Zaide is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO YEARS.
He is also ORDERED to return to complainant the sums given to him as acceptance and docket
fees in the amount of Php 70,000.00 from which should be deducted the amount of Php 2, 623.60
paid as docketing fees.