Jocelyn Ignacio vs. Atty.

Daniel Alviar

A.C. No. 11482, July 17, 2017

Facts:

This is an administrative case filed by the complainant against Atty. Daniel Alviar for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for his alleged refusal to refund the
acceptance fees, his alleged failure to appear in the criminal case he is handling, and his
failure to file any pleading therein.

In March 2014, the complainant sought the legal assistance of the respondent to
handle the case of complainant’s son who was apprehended by PDEA. Atty. Alviar agreed
for an acceptance fee of 100,000 pesos.

After initial payments were made, Atty. Alviar visited the complainant’s son who was
detained and conferred with him for about 20 minutes, and then left.

Atty. Alviar, through his secretary, secured from the Office of the City Prosecutor
copies of the case records. He then verified twice from the Hall of Justice if the case has
already been filed in court. It was at that time that Atty. Alviar asked for the remaining
balance of the acceptance fee, after the payment of which, he filed his notice of appearance
as counsel.

In April 2014, the respondent informed the complainant the date of her son’s
arraignment but that he cannot attend the same due to a previously schedule hearing. Atty.
Alviar ensured that he will find a way to attend the arraignment or that he will find a
collaborating lawyer that will be there in his place.

On April 26, 2014, the complainant wrote to the respondent informing him that she
decided to seek legal assistance from another lawyer due to his inability to attend her son’s
arraignment. The complainant further stated that the respondent should retain a portion of
the acceptance fee for preparatory legal services he rendered. The respondent denies
receiving this letter.

On the date of arraignment, the respondent failed to appear, and when asked, he
replied that he forgot. This led the complainant to write another letter to the respondent
asking him to formally withdraw as her son’s counsel, so that she can hire another lawyer
that will replace him. The complainant further requested that a portion of the acceptance
fee should be remitted to them in proportion to the legal services he rendered.
 Due to the failure of the respondent to heed to the complainant’s request, the latter
filed an administrative complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline. The respondent
denies neglecting his duties to complainant’s son.

The Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for negligence under Rule
18.03 of the CPR and recommended a 6-month suspension from practice of law. However,
the IBP Board of Governors Resolution lowered the recommended penalty to reprimand
with stern warning.

Hence, this case.

Issues:

1. Whether respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of complainant’s

son.
2. Whether or not respondent is entitled to the entirety of the acceptance fee.

Ruling:

1. Yes, respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of complainant’s

son.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an atty-client relationship and

gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Canon 18 of the CPR mandates
that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is the lawyer’s duty to serve the client
with competence and diligence.

In Voluntad-Ramirez v. Atty. Bautista, citing Santiago v. Fojas, the Supreme

Court ruled that: “Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of his client, the lawyer
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.”

In this case, the respondent failed to competently and diligently attend to the
legal matter entrusted to him in the following instances:
a) Respondent came to see his client and conferred with him once and only
for 20 minutes.
b) Respondent failed to attend the scheduled arraignment despite the
latter’s commitment to either find a way to personally attend the same or
to send a collaborating lawyer who could do so.
 c) Respondent forgot the date of arraignment.

Respondent claims that it was the complainant that failed to communicate

with him. If it were true, the least that Atty. Alviar could have done was to withdraw
his appearance as counsel. However, despite the complainant’s request, respondent
failed to perform the same. His failure to take such action speaks of his negligence.

2. As to the 2nd issue of whether the respondent is entitled to the P100,000

acceptance fee, the Supreme Court ruled that no, he is not entitled to the
entirety of the acceptance fee.

The SC reasoned that the respondent is only entitled to fees determined on

the basis of quantum meruit (as much as he deserves).

Quantum meruit is a device to prevent undue enrichment based on the

principle that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without working for it.

Sec. 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that: “An attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of
the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of
the attorney…”

Canon 20, Rule 20.01 also provides:

“CANON 20 – A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND

REASONABLE FEES.
Rule 20.01. – A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in
determining his fees:
(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of
the proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of
the IBP Chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
 (i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer”

In this case, the P100,000 pertains to respondent atty’s acceptance fee. For
his efforts and for the particular circumstances in this case, respondent should be
allowed a reasonable compensation of P3,000. The remainder should be returned to
the complainant.