SAIVAN R.

VALENDEZ, JD-IV
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Case Digest No. 3

SUZETTE DEL MUNDO VS. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO

A.C. No. 6903
April 6, 2012
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:
On January 8, 2005, Suzette (complainant) and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged
the legal services of Atty. Capistrano (respondent) to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of
their respective marriage allegedly for a fee of P140,000.00 each. On the same date, complainant
and respondent entered into a Retainer Agreement which required for an acceptance fee of
P30,000.00, appearance fee of P2,500.00 per hearing and P2,500.00 per pleading. Accordingly,
complainant paid respondent in the of P78,000.00.

With the payment the complainant made, she believed that both cases were already filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, and thus, waiting for a notice of hearing. At the time
that she could hardly reach the respondent, the former verified her case from the Clerk of Court
of Malabon and discovered that only the case of Tuparan was filed. Hence, she demanded for a
refund from respondent for the amount she had paid to respondent. However, respondent
handed her only P5,000.00 and thereafter, refused to communicate with her, prompting the
institution of this administrative complaint on September 7, 2005.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULINGS:
The IBP Board of Governors SUSPENDED Atty. Capistrano from practice of law for one year and
ordered to RETURN the amount of P140,000.00 to complainant within thirty days from receipt of
notice.

The Supreme Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD but with
modifications to the amount P140,000.00 to be returned to complainant. Respondent prayed to
reduce the payment to P73,000.00 as the net amount from P78,500.00 he received less P5,000.00
for the sum he already returned to complainant. Thus, the Court held respondent to be
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year for having clearly violated Canon 16 and 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette del Mundo
the full amount of P73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and DIRECTED to submit to the
Court proof of such payment.

Under Canon 16, a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. In rule 16.01, a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
or received for or from the client. In rule 16.02, a lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. And Canon 18 provides that a
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03, a lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable. Lastly, Rule 18.04 states that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

With the above-mentioned canons and rules, the lawyer is required to exercise that degree of
vigilance and attention of a good father of a family. Failure to do so will make him liable not just
to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. In the case at bar, respondent
uses his workload as his alibi to justify his failure in the exercise of such degree of vigilance and
attention to complainant, which held him liable to such canons and rules.