G.R. No. A.C. No. 11486. October 17, 2018
Fernando A. Flora III, Complainant, v. Atty. Giovanni A. Luna, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fernando A. Flora III engaged the legal services of Atty. Giovanni A. Luna in connection with his intention to file criminal cases against an Indian national. Complainant paid respondent a total of P43,500.00, representing an acceptance fee of P40,000.00 and an appearance fee of P3,500.00. The potential cases, however, were amicably settled at the barangay level without the need for court filing. Consequently, complainant demanded the return of the full amount, arguing that no legal services were ultimately rendered as no complaint was filed in court.
Instead of complying, respondent allegedly shouted at complainant, angrily stating that the payment was insufficient for his services. An administrative complaint was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint and did not appear at any of the mandatory conferences or hearings set by the IBP-CBD, leaving the allegations against him uncontroverted.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent’s acts, as alleged in the uncontroverted complaint, constitute unethical conduct warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The Court emphasized that the lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary, demanding the highest degree of fidelity and good faith. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) prohibits lawyers from engaging in deceitful conduct. Here, respondent received payment for legal services that were never performed, as the dispute was settled at the barangay level where legal representation is not required. His refusal to return the money constituted unjust enrichment at the client’s expense.
Furthermore, respondent’s reported act of shouting at the complainant when asked for a refund demonstrated a lack of respect and dignity, violating the mandate for lawyers to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. His subsequent failure to participate in the IBP proceedings, by not filing an answer or attending hearings, evidenced a contumacious disregard for judicial processes and his oath of office. While disbarment was considered too severe for a first offense, the Court deemed suspension appropriate. Citing precedent, the Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months and ordered to return the P43,500.00 to complainant with 6% legal interest from the finality of the judgment until full payment. He was also sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.