Belleza v. Macasa | AC No. 7815 | 23 July 2009

Dolores C. Belleza, Complainant, v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa, Respondent

Adm. Case No. 7815 | 23 July 2009

Facts:

On 10 November 2004, complainant went to see respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail of respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son, Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case for P30,000.

The following day, complainant made a partial payment of P15,000 to respondent thru their mutual friend Chua. On 17 November 2004, she gave him an additional P10,000. She paid the P5,000 balance on 18 November 2004. Both payments were also made thru Chua. On all three occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.

On 21 November 2004, respondent received P18,000 from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. When complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court.

Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense.

Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Negros Occidental chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In an order dated 13 July 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time to file an answer dated 10 August 2005, simply brushed aside the complaint for being "baseless, groundless and malicious" without, however, offering any explanation. He also prayed that he be given until 4 September 2005 to submit his answer.

Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions for second and third extensions of time praying to be given until 4 November 2005 to submit his answer. He never did.

Issue:

Was the Respondent in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility due to his negligence of the case of the respondent’s son?

Held:

For grossly neglecting the cause of his client, Atty. Macasa is guilty. Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainant’s son. Such undertaking imposed upon him the following duties:

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

x x x x x x x x x

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

x x x x x x x x x

CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied.

A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his client with competence and diligence. He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from such relationship. He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability other lawyers similarly situated possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to his client’s cause; and that he will take all steps necessary to adequately safeguard his client’s interest.

A lawyer’s negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer’s lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical.

If his client’s case is already pending in court, a lawyer must actively represent his client by promptly filing the necessary pleading or motion and assiduously attending the scheduled hearings. This is specially significant for a lawyer who represents an accused in a criminal case.

The accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the Constitution. However, this right can only be meaningful if the accused is accorded ample legal assistance by his lawyer:

The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned. The due process requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily.

The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence.

The right of an accused to counsel is beyond question a fundamental right. Without counsel, the right to a fair trial itself would be of little consequence, for it is through counsel that the accused secures his other rights. In other words, the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client. Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and truly decisive legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory representation.

In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainant’s son and receiving his attorney’s fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on account of respondent’s continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorney’s Office. Respondent’s lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainant’s son was reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainant’s son, it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latter’s constitutional right to bail.

The Supreme Court found the Respondent GUILTY not only of dishonesty but also of professional misconduct for prejudicing Francis John Belleza’s (the Complainant’s son) right to counsel and to bail under Sections 13 and 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, and for
violating Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules 12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore DISBARRED from the practice
of law effective immediately.

Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Dolores C. Belleza the
amounts of P30,000 and P18,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
promulgation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to
submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days from payment.
Failure to do so will subject him to criminal prosecution.