Penilla v. Alcid

PENILLA v.
ALCID
A.C. NO. 9149 SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
TOPIC: Duty of the Lawyer to His Clients – Duty of Competence and Diligence
FACTS:
Complainant Julian Penilla (Penilla) engaged the services of respondent Atty. Quintin
Alcid (Atty. Alcid) who advised the former that he would file a criminal case for estafa
against Spouses Rey and Evelyn Garin for their failure to repair Penilla’s Volkswagen
automobile under an agreement. Atty. Alcid charged P30,000 as attorney’s fees and
P10,000 as filing fees which Penilla paid in tranches. Atty. Alcid then filed the complaint
for estafa.
Penilla alleged that Atty. Alcid asked him to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to Asst.
City Prosecutor Fortuno to expedite a favorable resolution of the case. However, ACP
Fortuno dismissed the estafa case. Atty. Alcid filed a motion for reconsideration but the
same was denied. Atty. Alcid then presented the option of filing a civil case for specific
performance for Spouses Garin to refund the money to which Penilla paid additional
P10,000 as filing fees. Despite Penilla’s several visits to his office and follow-ups, Atty.
Alcid never gave him any update. Penilla then sought the assistance of the radio
program “Ito and Batas with Atty. Aga” which called the attention of Atty. Alcid, but the
same was unheeded. Thereafter, he discovered that a civil case for Specific
Performance and Damages was filed but was dismissed. He then filed an administrative
case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD) praying that Atty. Alcid be found guilty of gross misconduct for violating the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
On the other hand, Atty. Alcid prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of merit. He
contented that: (1) he only charged and received P2,000; (2) he did not ask Penilla to
give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to the prosecutor; and (3) the P30,000 acceptance fee
was for both cases. He also explained that he was not able to inform Penilla of the
status of the case because the latter would go to his office during days and times that
he would be attending his daily court hearings.
The IBP-CBD recommended the suspension of Atty. Alcid from the practice of law for
six (6) months “for negligence within the meaning of Canon 18 and transgression of
Rule 18.04 of the CPR”. IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD’s
report and recommendation. Atty. Alcid filed motions for reconsideration, but the same
was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alcid committed professional negligence under Canon 18
and Rule 18.04 of the CPR
RULING: Yes. Atty. Alcid is guilty of Canon 18, Rule 18.03, Rule 18.04, and Canon 17
of the CPR, and the Lawyer’s Oath.
A review of the proceedings and the evidence shows that Atty. Alcid violated:
1. Canon 18, CPR – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Atty. Alcid filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts warranted the filing of a civil
case for breach of contract. He also committed another blunder by filing a civil case
for specific performance and damages amounting to P36,000 at the RTC when it
should have been filed with the MTC.
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.
Atty. Alcid was plainly negligent and did not apprise Penilla of the status of both
cases, and paid no attention to Penilla’s cause despite repeated follow-ups. His lack
of professionalism in dealing with Penilla is also gross and inexcusable.
2. Rule 18.03, CPR – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
3. Rule 18.04, CPR – 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.
Atty. Alcid’s excuse in not updating Penilla is too lame and flimsy. 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.
4. 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.
5. Lawyer’s Oath
Atty. Alcid defied and failed to perform his duty and obligation to accord the highest
degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of his client’s interest. His
omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyer’s Oath.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Alcid is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct for violating
Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR. The Court hereby imposes
upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.

Penilla v. Alcid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penilla v. Alcid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penilla v. Alcid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PENILLA v.

You might also like