3L\epubltc of tlJe ~~(JHtppines

~uprente Qtourt
;:fl!lanila

FIUST DIVISJ()N

.JULIAN PENILLA, A.C. No. 9149

Complainant,
Present:

SERENO, CJ.,
ChairJ Jerson,
- versus - BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
REYt~S, and
PERI~AS-BER NABE, • .J.J.

ATTY. QUINTIN P. ALCID, JR., Promulgated:

Respondent.
SEP 0 4 2013
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DECISI<)N

VILLARAMA, .JH., ./.:

Before this Court is an administrative complaint 1 filed against respmrJent Atty.

Quintin P. Alcid, .Jr. for violation of the I .awyer's Oath and ·.the Code of
Professional Responsibili!.y, and for gross misconduct in the
perform_ance of his duty as a lawyer.

The antecedent tacts follow:

Complainant .Julian Penilla entered into an agret~menl with Spouses

. Rey and Evelyn Garin (the spouses) 1(x the repair of his Volkswagen automobile.
Despite full payment, the spouses defaulted in their obligation. Thus, contplainant
decided to file a case for breach of contract against the spouses where he engaged
the services of respondent as counsel.

Res!mndent sent a demand letter to the spouses and asked fc>r the refund of
complainant\ payment. When the spouses Jailed to return the

Designated additional rnetnbcr per Special Order No. 1529 da!cd Augu~t 29, 20 l.l.
Rullo, pp. 2-7. Docketed as CBD Case No. 05·1630.
Decision 2 A.C. No. 9149

payment, respondent advised complainant that he would file a criminal case

for estafa against said spouses. Respondent charged P30,000 as attorney’s
fees and P10,000 as filing fees. Complainant turned over the relevant
documents to respondent and paid the fees in tranches. Respondent then
filed the complaint for estafa before Asst. City Prosecutor Jose C. Fortuno of
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Respondent attended the
hearing with complainant but the spouses did not appear. After the hearing,
complainant paid another P1,000 to respondent as appearance fee.
Henceforth, complainant and respondent have conflicting narrations of the
subsequent events and transactions that transpired.

Complainant alleges that when the case was submitted for resolution,
respondent told him that they have to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to
Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno to expedite a favorable resolution of the case.
Complainant claims that despite initial reservations, he later acceded to
respondent’s suggestion, bought a bottle of Carlos Primero I for P950 and
delivered it to respondent’s office.

Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno later issued a resolution dismissing the

estafa case against the spouses. Respondent allegedly told complainant that
a motion for reconsideration was “needed to have [the resolution]
reversed.”2 Respondent then prepared the motion and promised complainant
that he would fix the problem. On February 18, 2002, the motion was denied
for lack of merit. Respondent then told complainant that he could not do
anything about the adverse decision and presented the option of filing a civil
case for specific performance against the spouses for the refund of the
money plus damages. Complainant paid an additional P10,000 to respondent
which he asked for the payment of filing fees. After complainant signed the
complaint, he was told by respondent to await further notice as to the status
of the case. Complainant claims that respondent never gave him any update
thereafter.

Complainant asserts having made numerous and unsuccessful

attempts to follow-up the status of the case and meet with respondent at his
office. He admits, however, that in one instance he was able to talk to
respondent who told him that the case was not progressing because the
spouses could not be located. In the same meeting, respondent asked
complainant to determine the whereabouts of the spouses. Complainant
returned to respondent’s office on January 24, 2005, but because respondent
was not around, complainant left with respondent’s secretary a letter
regarding the possible location of the spouses.

Complainant claims not hearing from respondent again despite his

several letters conveying his disappointment and requesting for the return of
the money and the documents in respondent’s possession. Complainant then
sought the assistance of the radio program “Ito ang Batas with Atty. Aga” to
solve his predicament. Following the advice he gathered, complainant went
2 Id. at 4.
Decision 3 A.C. No. 9149

to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial
Court and Regional Trial Court (RTC). Complainant learned that a civil case
for Specific Performance and Damages was filed on June 6, 2002 3 but was
dismissed on June 13, 2002. He also found out that the filing fee was only
P2,440 and not P10,000 as earlier stated by respondent. Atty. Aga of the
same radio program also sent respondent a letter calling his attention to
complainant’s problem. The letter, like all of complainant’s previous letters,
was unheeded.

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed before the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) the instant
administrative case praying that respondent be found guilty of gross
misconduct for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and for appropriate administrative sanctions to be imposed.

Respondent harps a different tale.

In an Answer4 filed on January 30, 2006, respondent prayed that the

case be dismissed for lack of merit. He denied charging complainant
P10,000 as filing fees for the estafa case and claimed that he charged and
received only P2,000. He also countered that the payment of P30,000 made
by the complainant was his acceptance fee for both the estafa case and civil
case. Respondent likewise denied the following other allegations of
complainant: that he assured the success of the case before the prosecutor;
that he asked complainant to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to the
prosecutor; that he promised to fix the case; and that he charged P10,000, as
he only charged P5,000, as filing fee for the civil case.

Respondent explained that it was not a matter of indifference on his

part when he failed to inform petitioner of the status of the case. In fact, he
was willing to return the money and the documents of complainant. What
allegedly prevented him from communicating with complainant was the fact
that complainant would go to his office during days and times that he would
be attending his daily court hearings.

The IBP-CBD called for a mandatory conference on April 28, 2006.

Only complainant and his counsel attended.5 The conference was reset and
terminated on June 9, 2006. The parties were directed to file their verified
position papers within 15 days,6 to which complainant and respondent
complied.7

On July 18, 2006, respondent filed a Reply8 praying for the dismissal

3
Id. at 18-21. Filed before the RTC, Branch 131, Caloocan City, and docketed as Civil Case No. C-
20115.
4
Id. at 27-30.
5
Id. at 35.
6
Id. at 77.
7
Id. at 37-44, 53-57.
8
Id. at 78-80.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 9149

of the case for lack of factual and legal bases. He stated that he had
performed his duties as complainant’s counsel when he filed the criminal
case before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and the civil
case before the RTC of Caloocan City. He averred that he should not be
blamed for the dismissal of both cases as his job was to ensure that justice is
served and not to win the case. It was unethical for him to guarantee the
success of the case and resort to unethical means to win such case for the
client. He continued to deny that he asked complainant to give the
prosecutor a bottle of Carlos Primero I and that the filing fees he collected
totalled P20,000. Respondent argued that it is incredulous that the total sum
of all the fees that he had allegedly collected exceeded P30,000 – the amount
being claimed by complainant from the spouses.

In its Report and Recommendation 9 dated September 12, 2008, the

IBP -CBD recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of
law for six months “for negligence within the meaning of Canon 18 and
transgression of Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,” viz:
In the case under consideration, there are certain matters which
keep sticking out like a sore thumb rendering them difficult to escape
notice.
One is the filing of a criminal complaint for estafa arising out of a
violation of the contract for repair of the Volks Wagon ( sic) car. It is basic
that when an act or omission emanates from a contract, oral or written, the
consequent result is a breach of the contract, hence, properly actionable in
a civil suit for damages. As correctly pointed out by the Investigating
Prosecutor, the liability of the respondent is purely civil in nature because
the complaint arose from a contract of services and the respondent
(spouses Garin) failed to perform their contractual obligation under the
contract.
xxxx

Another one is the filing of a civil complaint for specific

performance and damages (after the dismissal of the criminal complaint
for estafa) in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City where the actual
damages claimed is P36,000.00.

It is also basic that the civil complaint for P36,000.00 should have
been filed with the MTC [which] has jurisdiction over the same. One of
the “firsts” that a lawyer ascertains in filing an action is the proper forum
or court with whom the suit or action shall be filed. In June 2002 when the
civil complaint was filed in court, the jurisdiction of the MTC has already
expanded such that the jurisdictional amount of the RTC is already
P400,000.00.

xxxx

Another thing is the various follow-ups made by respondent’s

client as evidenced by the letters marked as Exhibits “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”
and “H” which were all received by complainant’s secretary, except for
Exhibit “H” which was received by Atty. Asong, not to mention Exhibit

9 Id. at 143-151.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 9149

“M” which was sent by “Atty. Aga”. These efforts of the complainant were
not reciprocated by the respondent with good faith. Respondent chose to
ignore them and reasoned out that he is willing to meet with the
complainant and return the money and documents received by reason of
the legal engagement, but omitted to communicate with him for the
purpose of fixing the time and place for the meeting. This failure suggests
a clear disregard of the client’s demand which was done in bad faith on the
10
part of respondent.

On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued

Resolution No. XVIII-2008-646, adopting and approving the
recommendation of the IBP-CBD. The Resolution11 reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
considering Respondent’s violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for his negligence, Atty. Quintin P.
Alcid, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months.

On April 24, 2009, respondent sought reconsideration12 and asked that

the penalty of suspension be reduced to warning or reprimand. After three
days, or on April 27, 2009, respondent filed a “Motion to Admit Amended
‘Motion for Reconsideration’ Upon Leave of Office.” 13 Respondent
asserted that the failure to inform complainant of the status of the cases
should not be attributed to him alone. He stressed that complainant had
always been informed that he only had time to meet with his clients in the
afternoon at his office in Quezon City. Despite such notice, complainant kept
going to his office in Tandang Sora. He admitted that though he committed
lapses which would amount to negligence in violation of Canon 18 and Rule
18.04, they were done unknowingly and without malice or bad faith. He also
stressed that this was his first infraction.

In its Resolution No. XIX-2011-473 dated June 26, 2011, the IBP
Board of Governors denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration for
lack of merit.14 On August 15, 2011, respondent filed a second Motion for
Reconsideration15 which was no longer acted upon due to the transmittal of
the records of the case to this Court by the IBP on August 16, 2011.16
17
On September 14, 2011, the Court issued a Resolution and noted the
aforementioned Notices of Resolution dated December 11, 2008 and June

10 Id. at 147-149.
11 Id. at 142, 165. Signed by National Secretary Tomas N. Prado.
12 Id. at 152-155.
13 Id. at 156-160.
14 Id. at 164.
15 Id. at 178-182.
16 Id. at 177. Signed by Director for Bar Discipline Alicia A. Risos-Vidal.
17 Id. at 175-176.
Decision 6 A.C. No. 9149

26, 2011. On December 14, 2011, it issued another Resolution18 noting the
Indorsement dated August 16, 2011 of Director Alicia A. Risos -Vidal and
respondent’s second Motion for Reconsideration dated August 15, 2011.

We sustain the findings of the IBP that respondent committed

professional negligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, with a modification that we also find respondent
guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code and the Lawyer’s
Oath.

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath,

a patent disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming an
attorney. A lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber
which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar but are
likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein.19
The Complaint before the IBP-CBD charged respondent with
violation of his oath and the following provisions under the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
a) Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his client;
b) Rule 15.[06, Canon 15] – A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is
able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body;
c) Rule 16.01[, Canon 16] – A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from his client;
d) Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him;
e) Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence;
f) Rule 18.03[, Canon 18] – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable; and
g) Rule 18.04[, Canon 18] – A lawyer shall keep his client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information.20

A review of the proceedings and the evidence in the case at bar shows
that respondent violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Complainant correctly alleged that respondent
violated his oath under Canon 18 to “serve his client with competence and
diligence” when respondent filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts of
the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of
18 Id. at 185.
19 Gonzaga v. Atty. Villanueva, Jr., 478 Phil. 859, 869 (2004), citing Tucay v. Atty. Tucay, 376 Phil. 336,
340 (1999).
20 Rollo, p. 2.
Decision 7 A.C. No. 9149

contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, respondent
committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific
performance and damages before the RTC. The complaint, having an
alternative prayer for the payment of damages, should have been filed with
the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over complainant’s claim
which amounts to only P36,000. As correctly stated in the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD:
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129[,] as amended by R.A. No. 7691 which
took effect on April 15, 1994[,] vests in the MTCs of Metro Manila
exclusive original jurisdiction of civil cases where the amount of demand
does not exceed P200,000.00 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs (Sec. 33), and after five
(5) years from the effectivity of the Act, the same shall be adjusted to
21
P400,000.00 (Sec. 34).

The errors committed by respondent 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 had he been
more diligent and circumspect in his role as counsel for complainant. What
aggravates respondent’s offense is the fact that his previous mistake in filing
the estafa case did not motivate him to be more conscientious, diligent and
vigilant in handling the case of complainant. The civil case he subsequently
filed for complainant was dismissed due to what later turned out to be a
basic jurisdictional error.

That is not all. After the criminal and civil cases were dismissed,
respondent was plainly negligent and did not apprise complainant of the
status and progress of both cases he filed for the latter. He paid no attention
and showed no importance to complainant’s cause despite repeated follow-
ups. Clearly, respondent is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the
cases. His lack of professionalism in dealing with complainant is also gross
and inexcusable. In what may seem to be a helpless attempt to solve his
predicament, complainant even had to resort to consulting a program in a
radio station to recover his money from respondent, or at the very least, get
his attention.

Respondent’s negligence under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 is also beyond

contention. A client pays his lawyer hard-earned money as professional fees.
In return, “[e]very case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee
or for free. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a
lawyer not to ‘neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.’ He must constantly keep in
mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding upon his
client. He is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal
procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a
good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-

21 Id. at 171.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 9149

hearted fealty to the client’s cause.” 22 Similarly, under Rule 18.04, a lawyer
has the duty to apprise his client of the status and developments of the case
and all other information relevant thereto. He must be consistently mindful
of his obligation to respond promptly should there be queries or requests for
information from the client.

In the case at bar, respondent explained that he failed to update

complainant of the status of the cases he filed because their time did not
always coincide. The excuse proffered by respondent is too lame and flimsy
to be given credit. Respondent himself admitted that he had notice that
complainant had visited his office many times. Yet, despite the efforts
exerted and the vigilance exhibited by complainant, respondent neglected
and failed to fulfill his obligation under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 to keep his
client informed of the status of his case and to respond within a reasonable
time to the client’s request for information.

Finally, respondent also violated Canon 17 of the Code 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.” The legal profession
dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the
highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of the client’s
interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must be undertaken in
order to safeguard the interest of the client. The honor bestowed on his
person to carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking the Lawyer’s
Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys. Rather, such honor attaches to him
for the entire duration of his practice of law and carries with it the
consequent responsibility of not only satisfying the basic requirements but
also going the extra mile in the protection of the interests of the client and
the pursuit of justice. Respondent has defied and failed to perform such duty
and his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyer’s Oath.

All said, in administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against

lawyers, it is the complainant who has the burden to prove by preponderance
of evidence 23 the allegations in the complaint. In the instant case,
complainant was only able to prove respondent’s violation of Canons 17 and
18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and the Lawyer’s Oath. Complainant failed to substantiate his claim that
respondent violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.06 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility when respondent allegedly instructed him to give a bottle of
Carlos Primero I to Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno in order to get a favorable
decision. Similarly, complainant was not able to present evidence that
respondent indeed violated Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 by allegedly collecting
money from him in excess of the required filing fees.

22 Agpalo, Ruben E., LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS, Seventh Edition (2002), p. 209, citing Santiago
v. Fojas, Adm. Case No. 4103, September 7, 1995, 248 SCRA 69, 75-76 & Torres v. Orden, A.C. No.
4646, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 1, 5.
23 Rudecon Management Corporation v. Atty. Camacho, 480 Phil. 652, 660 (2004), citing Office of the
Court Administrator v. Judge Sardido, 449 Phil. 619, 629 (2003) and Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, 457
Phil. 331, 341 (2003).
 Decisiou 9 A.C. No. 9149

As to respondent's proven acts and omissions which violate Canons 17 and 18

and Rules 1'8.03 and I ~.04 of the ~~1de_of _P!Q!~~~ion~!l Respousibility, and the i
,awyer's Oath, we tind the same to constitute gross misconduct for which he may be
suspended under Section,27, Rule 13~ of
the Rules.of{~ourt, viz:

SEC. .:. /. Disbarment or suspension 1!/ atlomeys by Supremt:

Court, growul\ therefor. ·· A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended fi·om
his office as attorney by the Supreme Court t(}r any deceit. malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conJud, or by reason of his conviclion uf a
crime i11volving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required
to tak~ hefi.m; admissiu11 to practice, or fi.Jr a willful disobedience appearing as an
attorney l~>r a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting and

approving the Decision of the Investigating ( "ornmissioner is hereby AFFil{MEil with
a MOlliFICATION that respondent Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr.· is hereby found GlJILfY
of gross misconduct f01' violating Canons (J and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
C9d~_ of ProfessiQnc~Ll~t!l2Ql1Sihility, as well as the Lawyer's Oath. This Court hereby
imposes upon respondent the penalty of St JSPENSJON from the pradice of law for a
period of SIX (6) MONTI-IS to commence immediately upon receipt of this Decision.
Respondent is further ADMONISHED to be more circumspect ·and diligent in handling
th.: cases of his clients, and STERNLY WAI~N.ED that a commission of the same or
similar acts in the ·future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Oftice of the Court

Administrator tu be disseminated to all courts throughout the country, to the Office of
ti·~e Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr.'s personal . records, and
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance.

SO ORDEREn.

WE CONCUR:

~~~... :s-- ·-...

MARIA LOlJIU)I~S P. A. SEnENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Decision 10 A.C. No. 9149

Associate Justice

1/r£, k~~Y
ESTELA M. PIJ:RI ,AS-BERNABE
Associate Justice