11/4/24, 4:05 PM Case Digest: A.C. No. 9176 - Aboy, Sr. vs.
Diocos
Title
Aboy, Sr. vs. Diocos
Case Decision Date
A.C. No. 9176 Dec 5, 2019
A lawyer is held administratively liable for failing to inform his clients of the dismissal of their case and
their options for appeal, resulting in a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
Case Digest (A.C. No. 9176)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Agustin Aboy, Sr. (complainant) against Atty.
Leo B. Diocos (respondent) for estafa, abuse of power, and administrative connivance with Judge
Winston M. Villegas and Atty. Rod Salazar, President of Pepsi Cola Production of the Philippines.
The complainant, as the President of the Pepsi Cola 349 cap holders in Negros Oriental, alleged that
Atty. Diocos was hired by the cap holders to represent them in a complaint for specific
performance, sum of money, breach of contract, and damages against Pepsi Cola Company. The
association's first president, Tumolac, and Atty. Diocos agreed on a 20% fee if the case progressed in
court. Atty. Diocos allegedly collected P150.00 from each of the more than five hundred cap holders.
The case was filed and tried before Judge Villegas, who dismissed it on November 7, 2007, for lack
of cause of action. Complainant and Gloria Ruamar, the succeeding president, sought a copy of the
dismissal order from both Judge Villegas and Atty. Diocos but were refused. Atty. Diocos demanded
P90,000.00 to appeal the case. When asked to withdraw his services, he did not comply. In 2009,
the complainant and Ruamar obtained a copy of the decision, which cited non-payment of docket
fees as the dismissal ground. Later, they discovered the ground was changed to absence of cause of
action, leading to allegations of connivance between Atty. Diocos and Judge Villegas. The complaint
was referred for investigation, and the IBP recommended a three-month suspension for Atty.
Diocos, which he contested. The complainant also sought the return of P364,520,000.00 plus
damages. The IBP denied both motions and affirmed the suspension recommendation.
Issue:
1. Should Atty. Leo B. Diocos be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Leo B. Diocos guilty of violating Rule 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year,
effective upon receipt of the decision, with a stern warning against repeating similar misconduct.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings against lawyers, the burden of proof
rests on the complainant, requiring clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The complainant
failed to substantiate claims that Atty. Diocos collected P150.00 from each cap holder or that there
were two versions of the dismissal decision. However, Atty. Diocos was found negligent for not
appealing the dismissal and failing to inform his clients of their legal options. The attorney-client
relationship demands utmost trust and confidence, requiring lawyers to serve with competence
and diligence. Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate
that lawyers must not neglect legal matters entrusted to them and must keep clients informed. The
Court stressed that lawyers must advise clients promptly about essential matters to avail of legal
remedies. The failure to file an appeal and inform clients of the dismissal's reasons constituted a
breach of duty. The Court imposed a one-year suspension, considering the gravity of Atty. Diocos'
actions, to uphold the legal profession's standards and protect public trust.
[Link] 1/1
