View full case

VALERIANA U. DALISAY v. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO

FACTS:

Atty. Melanio "Batas" Mauricio, Jr., the respondent, filed a motion for reconsideration against the court's Decision finding him guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct, imposing a six-month suspension from practice. The complainant, Valeriana U. Dalisay, engaged the respondent as her counsel in a civil case and paid him P56,000.00. However, the respondent did not render any legal services and refused to return the complainant's money and documents when their attorney-client relationship was terminated. Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro found that the respondent did not take any action despite receiving payment and recommended that he refund the complainant. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The respondent later discovered that the civil case was already "considered submitted for decision" and filed a complaint against the complainant for alleged violations of the Revised Penal Code. In his motion for reconsideration, the respondent argues that he was hired for a different purpose and that the complainant refused to provide necessary documents. The complainant argues that the respondent violated confidentiality and should have returned her money earlier. The court denies the motion, finding that the respondent failed to perform his obligations and discredits his attempt to disassociate himself from the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether complainant engaged respondent's services as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044.

  2. Whether respondent should be held accountable for his failure to render legal services and return the money and documents to complainant.

  3. Whether respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against complainant.

  4. Whether respondent's refusal to return the money constitutes contempt.

RULING:

  1. Yes, complainant engaged respondent's services as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044. Respondent's own statements in his Verified Comment on the Affidavit-Complaint indicate that complainant sought his legal service for the said case.

  2. Yes, respondent should be held accountable for his failure to render legal services and return the money and documents to complainant. Upon accepting the payment, an attorney-client relationship was established, giving rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Respondent failed to fulfill this duty and has been remiss in the performance of his obligations.

  3. Yes, respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against complainant. Filing falsification charges against the client is a breach of the trust and confidence reposed in the lawyer, and it is unacceptable conduct.

  4. No ruling was provided on whether respondent's refusal to return the money constitutes contempt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Once a lawyer accepts money from a client, an attorney-client relationship is established, giving rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause.

  • A lawyer is expected to serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted devotion.

  • Filing falsification charges against a client is a violation of the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client.