Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. A.C. 9976, June 25, 2014 - SAMARITA
Foronda vs. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. A.C. 9976, June 25, 2014 - SAMARITA
FACTS:
The complainant is an overseas Filipino worker based in Dubai. During her vacation in
the Philippines in May 2008, she contracted the services of respondent to file a petition
for the annulment of her marriage for an agreed packaged fee of P195,000.00 which she
paid in full by June 2008. Respondent, however, filed the petition for the annulment of
her marriage only in July 2009.
In June 2008, respondent obtained P200,000.00 from complainant with the promise to
pay the same with interest at 4% per month starting July 2008 until June 2009.
Respondent issued complainant eleven (11) checks for P8,000.00 each postdated checks
monthly from 10 July 2008 until 10 May 2009 plus a check for P108,000.00 payable on
10 June 2009 and another check for P100,000.00 payable on 8 June 2009. When
presented for payment, the first two (2) checks were good but the rest of the checks were
dishonored for being drawn against a closed account.
When complainant demanded payment, respondent issued to her eight (8) new
replacement postdated checks dated 25th of every month from June 2009 to January
2010. All of the replacement checks, however, were likewise dishonored for being drawn
against a closed account. When respondent was unable to pay respondent, complainant
filed a criminal complaint against him for violation of BP 22 before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Muntinlupa. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed after
complainant executed an affidavit of desistance after she was paid a certain amount by
respondent.
ISSUE:
a) Whether or not the respondent is guilty of delay in filing of the petition for
annulment of marriage of the complainant.
b) Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he failed to settle his obligation to the complainant.
HELD:
a) YES, for delaying in filing the petition for complainant, respondent should be
deemed guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
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.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.” “He is
required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal,
care and utmost devotion.” “A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor
not only protects the interest of his client, he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to
the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
b) YES, The respondent’s act of issuing worthless checks is a violation of Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that “a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The issuance of
checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him,
shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him
unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.
It cannot be denied that the respondent’s unfulfilled promise to settle his obligation and
the issuance of worthless checks have seriously breached the complainant’s trust. She
went so far as to file multiple criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against him.
“The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that ‘a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.’ Necessity and public interest
enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with his client.