Consorcia Rollon vs. Atty.

Camilo Naraval
425 SCRA 675

FACTS:
In October 2000, petitioner Rollon went to seek Atty. Naravals assistance in a case filed against him
before the Municipal Trial Court for collection of sum of money with prayer for attachment. Atty. Naraval
agreed to be Rollons lawyer and accepted P8,000 as filing and partial service fee. A week after, Rollons
son went to follow up with the case, only to find out that Naraval was not able to act on the case as he
was so busy. In November 2001, since there was still no action on his case, Rollon decided to withdraw
the amount paid to Naraval and to retrieve his documents pertaining to the case. Since Rollon did not
obtain any response from Naraval, he referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
Respondent did not file any answer, so the CBD proceeded with the investigation ex parte.

The investigating commissioner of the CBD recommended that Naraval be suspended from the practice of
law for 1 year for violation of Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The report
indicated that Naraval caused dishonor to the bar when he accepted service fee and filing fee payment
from Rollon but failed to act on his case. He also failed to appraise Rollon of the status of his case, which
was later found by the latter to have been decided with finality against him. The IBP upheld the CBDs
report and recommended for Naravals suspension for 2 years and restitution of the P8,000.00 received
from complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Naravals acts warrant his suspension from the practice of law.

HELD:
The Supreme Court agreed to the IBPs resolution on the following grounds:
1. Respondent violated Rule 15.05 of the CPR, which provides that A lawyer, when advising his client,
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the clients case.
Respondent demanded payment of filing fee and service fee from complainant, giving the latter hope
that her case would be acted upon. But such hope later turned out to be false when respondent did
nothing to act on the case. A lawyer is ordinarily not obliged to act as adviser of any person. He may
decline employment if he is not in a position to handle the case competently. But once he agrees to
handle a case, as exhibited from respondents acceptance of money from the complainant, attorney-
client relationship is established and the attorney is abound to undertake the task with utmost
devotion until its termination.
2. Respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which provides that A lawyer shall hold in trust all
money and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Despite repeated demands,
respondent failed to return the files of the case to complainant for no justifiable reason and even
kept the latters money instead of returning it, thereby reflecting his moral unsoundness. As he did
not act on the case, respondents failure to return complainants money upon demand gave rise to
the presumption that he had converted it to his own use, betraying the trust reposed in him.
3. Respondent violated Canon 17 of the CPR, which provides that A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him and Canon 18 of
the CPR, which provides that A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Naraval exhibited incompetence and neglect of duty when after receiving the amount of P8,000 as
filing and partial service fee, he failed to render any legal service to the complainant. It was
respondents duty as a lawyer to appraise complainant on the status of his case. It turned out that
complainants case had long been decided with finality against him. Instead of advancing the
complainants cause by informing him of the status of his case, respondent withheld such vital
information to the detriment of complainant.

The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Naraval from the practice of law for 2 years and ordered him to
restitute, within 30 days from notice, complainants P8,000, plus interest thereon at the rate of 6
percent per annum until fully paid.