A.C. No. 11663. July 31, 2017

**A.C. No. 11663. July 31, 2017** is a decision 2017 made by the Supreme Court.

Lawyer suspended for litigation expenses

## Case Details

* Nanette B. Sison, represented by Delia B. Sarabia Vs. Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez
* A.C. No. 11663. July 31, 2017
* Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe
* http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63226
* xxx

## Issue

* The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

## Info

"Records show that in September 2012, complainant engaged respondent's services to file a money claim, and pursuant to such engagement, complainant paid respondent a total of P215,000.00. After a little more than three (3) months, complainant terminated respondent's legal services due to the latter's failure to render legal services. While it was acknowledged that respondent did render some legal services to complainant albeit only in the initiatory stage, it was also established that respondent failed to duly update his client on the developments of the case. As correctly pointed out by the IBP, respondent's lapses constitute a violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, which reads: CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE."

"In this case, respondent failed to account for the money received from complainant when he only acknowledged receipt of P165,000.00 for litigation expenses despite admittedly receiving P215,000.00. When complainant terminated his legal services, the fact that no case has been filed in court should have prompted him to immediately return to complainant the amounts intended as filing and bond fees, as these were obviously unutilized."

"In fact, respondent admitted that, based on his belief, he was entitled to only P65,000.00 as compensation for his legal services. As such, he should have returned the excess amount of P150,000.00 out of the P215,000.00 he received from complainant. Notably, Rule 16.03 of the CPR allows a lawyer to retain the amount necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements. Hence, respondent's persistent refusal to return the money to complainant despite several demands renders him administratively liable."

"Although the IBP correctly found that respondent is entitled to reasonable compensation for the limited services he rendered, the Court notes that respondent appears to have waived his claim for compensation when he agreed to return the amount of P200,000.00 in cash and pay an additional P118,352.00 in exchange for complainant's desistance in the *Estafa* and disbarment cases filed against him. Thus, the matter of restitution should no longer be an issue. However, it should be stressed that his administrative liability herein should remain, considering the rule that a disbarment case is not subject to any compromise."

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, respondent Atty. xxx is found **GUILTY** of violating Rule 18.04, Canon 18, as well as Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is **SUSPENDED** from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months effective from the finality of this Resolution, and is **STERNLY WARNED** that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

## Trivia

* Considering the surrounding circumstances of this case, such as the short duration of the engagement, respondent's return of the money, his expression of humility and remorse, and the fact that this is his first administrative case, the Court finds the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months sufficient and commensurate to respondent's violations.