Nebreja vs. Atty. Reonal
Nebreja vs. Atty. Reonal
_______________
** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1650 dated 13 March
2014.
* THIRD DIVISION.
386
Appeals, 202 SCRA 674 (1991), sets an example. In the said case,
the Supreme Court imposed a six-month suspension on the lawyer
after it was established that the said lawyer indeed claimed to be a
lawyer of Porac Trucking, Inc. when, in truth and in fact, he was
not.—With regard to respondent’s misrepresentation of his office
address, the case of Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 202
SCRA 674 (1991), sets an example. In the said case, the Court
imposed a six-month suspension on the lawyer after it was
established that the said lawyer indeed claimed to be a lawyer of
Porac Trucking, Inc. when, in truth and in fact, he was not. Still,
in another case, the same six (6)-month suspension was imposed
on the erring lawyer after it was established that he claimed
before the trial court to be a member of Citizens Legal Assistance
Office when in truth, he was not.
Same; Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; The lawyer’s
act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in
handling the complainant’s case and, subsequently, failing to
render the services, was a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.—In this case, respondent clearly
received his acceptance fee, among others, and then completely
neglected his client’s cause. Moreover, he failed to inform
complainant of the true status of
387
the petition. His act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal
services in handling the complainant’s case and, subsequently,
failing to render the services, was a clear violation of Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Same; Same; The Supreme Court has recently adopted the
policy to let the complainant claim and collect the amount due
from the respondent in an independent action, civil or criminal.—
For all of respondent’s acts — failure to file the contracted
petition for annulment of marriage in behalf of the complainant,
his misrepresentation on its status and his use of a fictitious office
address, he deserves the penalty imposed upon him by the IBP.
The Court, however, deletes the aforementioned order stated in
the resolution of the IBP, to wit, “To return the amount of Eighty
Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P80,900.00) to complainant
within five (5) days from notice with 12% interest per annum from
the date this recommendation is affirmed by the Supreme Court.”
The Court has recently adopted the policy to let the complainant
claim and collect the amount due from the respondent in an
independent action, civil or criminal.
RESOLUTION
MENDOZA, J.:
For resolution is the administrative complaint for
disbarment1 filed by Ma. Elena Carlos Nebreja
(complainant) against Atty. Benjamin Reonal (respondent)
for his failure to file the contracted petition for annulment
of marriage in her behalf; for his misrepresentation on its
status; and for his use of a fictitious office address.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 1-5.
388
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 6-14.
389
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719
390
_______________
3 People v. Baltazar, 385 Phil. 1023; 329 SCRA 378 (2000).
4 Republic v. Bautista, 559 Phil. 360; 532 SCRA 598 (2007).
5 Sadhwani v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 54; 281 SCRA 75 (1997).
391
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719
_______________
6 Manila Bay Club Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 319 Phil. 413; 245 SCRA
715 (1995).
392
Complainant and respondent filed their motions for
reconsideration on April 25, 2009 and April 27, 2009
respectively, but both were denied in a resolution, dated
January 3, 2013.
After a thorough review of the records, the Court agrees
with the resolution of the IBP except with respect to the
order to return the amount of P80,900.00.
Despite the engagement of his services, respondent did
not file the contracted petition. His conduct, as held in Vda.
De Enriquez v. San Jose,7 amounted to inexcusable
negligence. This was found to be contrary to the mandate
prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which enjoined a lawyer not to
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides for the rule on negligence and
states:
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
This Court has consistently held, in construing this
Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the
obligations due to the client is considered per se a
violation.8 Thus, a lawyer was held to be negligent when he
failed to do anything to
_______________
7 545 Phil. 379; 516 SCRA 486 (2007).
8 Solidon v. Macalad, A.C. No. 8158, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA
472.
393
_______________
9 Villafuerte v. Cortez, 351 Phil. 915; 288 SCRA 687 (1998).
10 Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, 443 Phil. 479; 395 SCRA 386 (2003).
11 Reyes v. Vitan, 496 Phil. 1; 456 SCRA 87 (2005).
12 279 Phil. 736; 202 SCRA 674 (1991).
13 Afurong v. Aquino, 373 Phil. 695; 315 SCRA 77 (1999).
14 Reyes v. Vitan, supra note 11.
394
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719
395
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10