FACTS:

Ma. Elena Carlos Nebreja (complainant) filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Benjamin Reonal (respondent) for his failure to file her petition for annulment of marriage, misrepresentation on its status, and use of a fictitious office address. Complainant claimed that she engaged the respondent's services in March 2004 and paid him a total of P55,000.00 for the various fees he asked for. However, she did not receive any updates on her petition aside from respondent's claim that they needed to wait for her appointment with the psychologist evaluation. Respondent later told complainant on April 4, 2005, that her petition for annulment was dismissed for lack of evidence and asked her for additional sums of money totaling P25,900.00. Despite the payments, she still did not receive any updates from respondent. When complainant asked for the schedule of her psychological test and requested copies of her case files, respondent gave various excuses and refused to provide the information. Complainant later discovered that respondent's claimed law office address did not exist, and that his residential address was listed on his calling card. Complainant suspected that he did not file any petition for annulment based on the circumstances. In his answer, respondent denied being engaged by complainant and being paid for the petition. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found that respondent failed to file the petition for annulment due to inexcusable negligence based on the documentary evidence of payment submitted by complainant and her credible testimony. The CBD also did not give credence to respondent's denials and found that he used a fictitious office address.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent failed to file the requisite petition for annulment for complainant and misrepresented its status.

2. Whether respondent used a fictitious office address.

RULING:

1. The CBD found respondent liable for inexcusable negligence for failing to file complainant's petition for annulment. Documentary evidence of payment submitted by complainant was considered sufficient to prove the engagement of respondent's services. Respondent's denials were not given credence as they were unsupported by evidence and contradicted by complainant's positive and categorical statement.

2. The CBD found that respondent used a fictitious office address. Complainant presented evidence showing that the address provided by respondent for his law office did not exist, and that the address on his calling card was actually his residential address.

PRINCIPLES:

• Positive statement is stronger and carries greater evidentiary weight than negative evidence.

• Inexcusable negligence in failing to perform professional duties can lead to liability in a disciplinary complaint.

• The use of a fictitious office address can be a basis for disciplinary action against a lawyer.