Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45935:ac-6238&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:44:12+00:00

Document:
LINDA VILLARIASA-RIESENBECK, Complainant, v. ATTY. JAYNES C. ABARRIENTOS, Respondent.
In a Verified Letter-Complaint1 filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on September 11, 2000, complainant Linda Villariasa-Riesenbeck charged respondent Atty. Jaynes C. Abarrientos with professional misconduct and neglect of duty.
We are in full accord with the recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors.
to be paid on or before October 30, 2000.
As the first receipt shows, respondent bound himself to file not only the Motion for Reconsideration, but also the Petition for Review . This is clear from the words "Partial Payment for Preparation of Motion for Reconsideration & eventually Petition for Review to the Supreme Court" in the first receipt. The second receipt, on its face, bears the words "Balance Remaining: P5,000.00 to be paid upon submission of the Petition for Review to the Supreme Court." The tenor of these words, which respondent himself had written, clearly shows the respondent's obligations concerning complainant's case.
That respondent was supposed to elevate complainant's case is consistent with the fact that as early as March 2000, during the pendency of the Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, respondent instructed complainant to secure certified true copies of the adverse decision to be attached to the petition.28 Not only is his action proof that he was obliged to elevate complainant's case, his action is also proof he considered her cause meritorious. Respondent's present claim that he apprised complainant from the very start that further appeal or petition would be unmeritorious is, therefore, clearly a ruse.
Likewise unbelievable is respondent's claim that he repeatedly sent his messenger and had his secretaries call complainant several times. Respondent alleges that complainant could not be reached in time for him to withdraw his services while allowing complainant sufficient time to hire other counsel. We note, however, that respondent never attempted to write complainant to apprise her that he had already received the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration. Sending a letter to her by registered mail would have been the simplest thing he could have done to protect himself from liability if it were true that complainant could not be found in time.
What is more, complainant's landlady and the latter's housemaid averred in a joint affidavit that none of respondent's personnel ever visited or called and left a message for complainant. Their declarations, coming as they do from disinterested persons, are entitled to greater credence than the statements from respondent's own personnel. We have little doubt that respondent had invented a scenario to explain his negligence.
Respondent should be reminded that once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause.29 The lawyer must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the client's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.30 Otherwise stated, the lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of the client's rights, and the exertion of the lawyer's utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from the client, save by the rules of law legally applied.31 This simply means that the client is entitled to the benefit of any remedy and defense that is authorized by law and may expect the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.32 Until the lawyer's withdrawal is properly done, the lawyer is expected to do his or her best for the interest of the client.
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Aggravating his negligence, respondent failed to demonstrate the candor he owed complainant. Respondent kept hiding from complainant the fact that he had received a copy of the Resolution as early as April 18, 2000, despite complainant's many visits to his law office. Worse, respondent made complainant believe that the petition would be filed in time before this Court.
Respondent's failure to exercise due diligence in attending to the interest of complainant caused her grave material prejudice. Respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client. In line with our ruling in Abay v. Montesino,38 respondent's suspension is fully warranted. As recommended, we find that his immediate suspension from the practice of law for four months is called for under the circumstances.
As to the alleged overpayment of attorney's fees, the IBP recommends that respondent be made to refund the P5,000 that complainant claims she paid for the Petition for Review . We find that based on the receipts complainant submitted, the entire amount of fees and expenses agreed upon was P15,000. Of this amount, complainant already paid P10,000, corresponding to the attorney's fees and expenses related to making the Motion for Reconsideration. From the second receipt, it is clear that the remaining balance of P5,000 was payable upon the filing of the Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, which was never done. Since evidence shows that he did file a motion but he was thereafter negligent and lacking in honesty and candor in dealing with his client, a refund is fair and proper, not of the entire amount of P10,000 but only of P5,000.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. JAYNES C. ABARRIENTOS is found LIABLE for serious misconduct and negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for four (4) months, with warning that commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. He is also ORDERED to refund the amount of P5,000.00 soonest to complainant.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of respondent, Atty. Jaynes C. Abarrientos, in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies hereof be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.
3 Id. at 3, 6-7.
11 Id. at 40-41, 47-54.
24 Id. at 184, 196.
26 Id. at 6 (Emphasis supplied).
27 Id. at 7 (Emphasis supplied).
28 Id. at 3, 37.
29 Abay v. Montesino, Adm. Case No. 5718, 4 December 2003, 417 SCRA 77, 83.
30 Santeco v. Avance, Adm. Case No. 5834, 11 December 2003, 418 SCRA 6, 13.
31 Jardin v. Villar, Jr., Adm. Case No. 5474, 28 August 2003, 410 SCRA 1, 7-8.
32 Perea v. Almadro, Adm. Case No. 5246, 20 March 2003, 399 SCRA 322, 328.
33 Endaya v. OCA, Adm. Case No. 3967, 3 September 2003, p. 11.
34 Supra, note 31 at 6-7.
35 Ong v. Grijaldo, Adm. Case No. 4724, 30 April 2003, 402 SCRA 1, 7; Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
36 Oparel, Sr. v. Abaria, Adm. Case No. 959, 30 July 1971, 40 SCRA 128, 131.
37 In re Tionko, 17 March 1922, 43 Phil. 191, 194.
38 Supra, note 29 at 84.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.