Penilla vs. Atty. Alcid, Jr.

A.C. No. 9149 September 4, 2013

Facts:
An administrative complaint in the IBPwas filed against respondent, Atty. Alcid, Jr. for violation
of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for gross misconduct in the
performance of his duty as a lawyer. This rooted when Penilla entered into an Agreement with Spouses
Garin for the repair of his Volkswagen automobile but despite payment, the spouses defaulted in their
obligation. Penilla decided to file a case for breach of contract and engaged the service of Atty. Alcid, Jr.

The stories of the two sides were quite different from each other. However, the following events
were proven:
Respondent filed a criminal case of estafa when the fact of the case warranted the filing of a civil case for
breach of contract. After the complaint for estafa was dismissed, Atty. Alcid committed another blunder
by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed it
with the MTC due to the amount involved, that was only P36,000. Also after the criminal and civil cases
were dismissed, respondent was plainly negligent and did not apprise complainant of the status and
progress of both cases he filed for the Penilla.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated the Laywer’s Oath and Code of Professional
Responsibility when dealing with his client, Penilla.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 17, 18 and Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath under Canon 18 to
“serve his client with competence and diligence” when he filed a criminal case for estafa when facts of
the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. The errors committed with
respect to the nature of the remedy adopted in the criminal complaint and the forum selected in the civil
complaint were so basic and could have been easily averted has Alcid been more diligent and circumspect
in his role as counsel for complainant. Alciddid not also apprise complainant of the status of the cases.
This is in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 which oblige a lawyer to keep his client informed of the
status of the case and to respond with a reasonable time to the client’s request for informationHe paid no
attention and showed no importance to complainant’s cause despite repeated follow-ups. Atty. Alcid, Jr.
is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. The excuse that Alcidproffered, that their time
did not always coincide, is found by the Court as too lame and flimsy. His lack of professionalism in
dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. Alcid also violated Canon 17 which states that a
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the
highest degree, fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of client’s interest. The most thorough
groundwork and study must be undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr.
has defied and failed to perform such duty and his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the
Lawyer’s Oath.