3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

A.C. No. 9896. March 19, 2014.*

MA. ELENA CARLOS NEBREJA, petitioner, vs. ATTY.
BENJAMIN REONAL, respondent. 

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; The mere failure of the lawyer to

perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a
violation.—Despite the engagement of his services, respondent
did not file the contracted petition. His conduct, as held in Vda.
De Enriquez v. San Jose, 516 SCRA 486 (2007), 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,

_______________

** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1650 dated 13 March
2014. 

* THIRD DIVISION. 

386

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. Thus, a lawyer was
held to be negligent when he failed to do anything to protect his
client’s interest after receiving his acceptance fee. In another case,
this Court has penalized a lawyer for failing to inform the client of
the status of the case, among other matters. In another instance,
for failure to take the appropriate actions in connection with his
client’s case, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law
for a period of six months and was required to render accounting
of all the sums he received from his client.
Same; Same; With regard to respondent’s misrepresentation of
his office address, the case of Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

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. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

  Roque & Butuyan Law Offices for complainant. 

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

On June 26, 2006, complainant filed a verified

Complaint-Affidavit before the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBP) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
against respondent. Complainant alleged in her complaint--
affidavit and position paper that sometime in March 2004,
she engaged respondent’s services to file her petition for
annulment. She paid in cash and in checks,2 the various
fees he asked from her on several occasions which totalled
P55,000.00.
After paying respondent, however, complainant did not
receive any word from him with regard to the status of her
petition for annulment other than his claim that they
needed to wait for her appointment with the psychologist
evaluation.
 On April 4, 2005, respondent told complainant that her
petition for annulment was dismissed for lack of evidence.
He then again asked for sums of money, on separate
occasions, totalling P25,900.00, to pay for the psychological
test, the sheriff’s fee, the refiling fee, and the publication.
Complainant again, despite respondent’s receipt of sums of
money, failed to receive any update from respondent.
When complainant asked for the schedule of her
psychological test, respondent merely told her that the
psychologist was unavailable. When she tried to ask for the
number of her case and to obtain copies of the records,
respondent just told her that the records were kept in a
cabinet, the key to which was in the possession of his law
partner who was out of town at that time.
On March 14, 2006, complainant met with respondent to
secure copies of her annulment case file. Respondent,
however, merely handed to her photocopies of her marriage

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

contract and her children’s birth certificates. When she

asked for copies of her case files, he just told her that his
law office could not let her use the pleadings of the case.
She then asked

_______________
2 Id., at pp. 6-14.

389

for his office address to appeal to his law partners, but

respondent refused to give it.
Complainant checked her records and found
respondent’s demand letter bearing the address of his
claimed law office, “18/f Century Towers Building, Legaspi
St. corner de la Rosa, Makati.” When complainant tried to
look for the said office, she discovered that there was no
such building. She also found respondent’s calling card
bearing the address, “86 Magat Salamat Street, Project 4,
Quezon City,” which, complainant found out, was
respondent’s residential address.
When complainant tried again to obtain copies of her
annulment case from respondent, he did not give any and
told her that her annulment case would just be refiled.
When she asked him to write a letter to explain to the
University of Perpetual Help-Rizal the discrepancy
between the surnames appearing in her children’s NSO-
issued birth certificates and the school records, respondent
did not mention any pending annulment case in the letter,
which he filed in complainant’s behalf. These
circumstances made complainant suspect that he did not
file any petition for annulment at all.
In his answer and position paper, respondent denied
having been engaged by complainant to handle her petition
for annulment and having been paid therefor. In
particular, respondent averred that complainant did not
engage him to be her lawyer because she was unemployed
and could not afford his legal services; that he was the
retained counsel of one Desiree Dee, complainant’s
associate, in the prosecution of labor, civil and criminal
cases, but not for her annulment; that in the preparation of
the affidavit for the University of Perpetual Help, he did
not mention her intention to pursue an annulment
proceeding against her husband upon her request; and that
no psychological test was conducted because she refused to
allocate time to accommodate the schedule of the clinical
psychologist.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

There are two principal issues to be resolved in this

case. First, whether indeed respondent failed to file the
requisite

390

petition for annulment for complainant and misrepresented

its status; and second, whether or not he used a fictitious
office address.
With regard to the first issue, the CBD found that
respondent was liable for inexcusable negligence for failing
to file her petition for annulment. There was no dispute
that the parties met to discuss about the filing of
complainant’s intended petition for annulment of marriage.
They, however, disagreed on the engagement of his services
to file the petition.
On the matter, CBD found as sufficient the documentary
evidence of payment submitted by complainant to prove the
engagement of his legal services. During the clarificatory
hearing, complainant answered the questions on the
purposes for which the payments were given in a
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank
manner, which demeanor was a badge of credibility.3
The CBD did not give credence to respondent’s denials,
which prevailed over the positive and categorical statement
of the complainant. It cited the well-settled rule that
positive statement was stronger and attained greater
evidentiary weight than negative evidence.4 Moreover, he
did not submit any evidence to support or corroborate his
denials and allegations or to refute complainant’s evidence.
In sum, his claims were merely supported by his
allegations, which, by law, were not equivalent to proof.5
With regard to the second issue, the CBD found that
indeed, respondent used a fictitious office address to
deceive complainant. He did not submit any proof that such
building existed or that he held office at said address. He
also did not deny either the due execution and authenticity
of the letter

_______________
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

with his printed office address. By failing to controvert the

evidence of the other party, the truth of the said evidence
was deemed to be admitted by the litigant.6 Such act, as
held by the CBD, was a violation of respondent’s lawyer’s
oath to do no falsehood and which consequently rendered
him administratively liable.
On September 25, 2008, the CBD found respondent
guilty of both charges and recommended his suspension
from the practice of law and ordered him to return the
amounts taken from the complainant. The dispositive
portion of its report reads:

WHEREFORE, it is therefore respectfully recommended that

respondent be: (a) suspended from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year; and (b) ordered to return to complainant, within
five (5) days from notice, the sum of P80,900.00 with 12% interest
per annum from the date when this recommendation is affirmed
by the Supreme Court until the full amount shall have been
returned.

On December 11, 2008, a resolution was passed by the

Board of Governors of the IBP, which adopted and
approved the recommendation of the CBD. The IBP
Resolution is hereby quoted as follows:
 

RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-2008-652

CBD Case No. 06-1767
Ma. Elena Carlos Nebreja vs.
Atty. Benjamin Reonal
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and
the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent’s
violation of Rule

_______________
6 Manila Bay Club Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 319 Phil. 413; 245 SCRA
715 (1995).

392

18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his

inexcusable negligence by failure to file the annulment petition
and for misrepresentation, Atty. Benjamin Reonal is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

Ordered 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.

 
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

protect his client’s interest after receiving his acceptance

fee.9 In another case,10 this Court has penalized a lawyer
for failing to inform the client of the status of the case,
among other matters. In another instance, for failure to
take the appropriate actions in connection with his client’s
case, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for
a period of six months and was required to render
accounting of all the sums he received from his client.11
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

With regard to respondent’s misrepresentation of his

office address, the case of Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,12 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,13 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.
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 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.14
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 ficti-

_______________
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

tious 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.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

Nevertheless, the Court looks with disfavor at the

nonpayment by a lawyer of his due obligations.
WHEREFORE, the December 11, 2008 Resolution of
the IBP adopting and approving the September 25, 2008
Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the IBP that Atty. Benjamin Reonal be suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year is hereby APPROVED. The
order to return the amounts received from complainant is
hereby DELETED. This decision is immediately executory
and is without prejudice to the filing of any civil or criminal
action against respondent.
Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Bar
Confidant to be included in the records of the respondent;
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all
its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Leonen,

JJ., concur.

Resolution of IBP suspending Atty. Benjamin Reonal

from practice of law for one (1) year approved.

 
395

Notes.―The Court is surprised that someone like Dean

Leonen, with his reputation for perfection and stringent
standards of intellectual honesty, could proffer the
explanation that there was no misrepresentation when he
allowed at least one person to be indicated as having
actually signed the Statement when all he had was a
verbal communication of an intent to sign. (Re: Letter of the
UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement
by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of
Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,” 644 SCRA 543
[2011])
Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal
services, he is expected to serve his client with competence,
and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and
devotion. (Voluntad-Ramirez vs. Bautista, 683 SCRA 327
[2012])

——o0o——

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 719

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017806cd48d85619ca5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10