DALISAY v MAURICIO

January 23, 2006 || Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. RATIO:

PROVISION INVOLVED:
Rule 15.02 -- “A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.”
FACTS:
● October 13, 2001 -- Complainant Valeriana Dalisay engaged respondent
Atty. Mauricio Jr’s services in Civil Case No. 00-044. She paid Php56,000
for his legal services, but respondent never rendered legal services for
her. She terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded the
return of her money. Respondent refused.
○ IBP investigated and found out that no action nor pleadings were
made by the respondent except his alleged conferences and
opinions rendered when Dalisay frequented his law office.
Recommended refund of Php56,000 to Dalisay and to dismiss
complaint.
○ April 22, 2005 -- Court rendered respondent guilty of malpractice
and gross misconduct. Suspended for six months.
● Upon learning decision, Atty. went to MTC and inquired about the status of
the Civil Case. He found out that the tax declarations and title submitted by
complainant are not official records. Thus, he filed a Sworn Affidavit
Complaint against her charging her of falsification of documents.
○ Atty.’s MR stated the following arguments:
1. Dalisay did not engage his services as counsel for the
Civil Case
2. He was hired on October 2001, two months after the
decision for the Civil Case was rendered (August 2001)
3. Dalisay refused to provide him with documents related to
the case, preventing him from doing his job
4. Dalisay tampered with evidence and falsified documents.
○ Complainant Dalisay filed her reply, saying:
1. Atty. violated principle of confidentiality when he filed
falsification charges against her
2. Atty. should have returned the money
3. Atty. should have verified the authenticity of her
documents
4. Atty’s refusal to return money constitutes contempt
1. 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. He is
expected to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, and must
serve client with competence and diligence. This did not happen here,
because Atty. Mauricio had been remiss in the performance of his duties by
not appearing as counsel despite acceptance of money.
2. Respondent’s assertion that complainant did not engage his services for the
Civil Case is obviously a last-ditch attempt to evade culpability. He
categorically stated in his Affidavit-Complaint that Dalisay engaged his
services for that Case, and he cannot just change his version because it will
be contrary to rules of fair play, justice, and due process.
3. It bears reiterating that respondent did not take any action on the case
despite having been paid for his services. This is tantamount to
abandonment of his duties as a lawyer and taking undue advantage of his
client.
4. Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in
the Civil Case, it is still not sufficient to exonerate respondent because of
Rule 19.02 (He should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify
her fraudulent representation, and if client refuses, the lawyer shall terminate
his relationship with client). First, he did not follow said canon. Second, the
pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification when their
attorney-client relationship has already been terminated and only after the
“news of his suspension spread in the legal community.” Clearly, respondent
was motivated by vindictiveness in filing of charges against complainant.
MR DENIED.
APRIL 22, 2005 DECISION IS UPHELD (RESPONDENT SUSPENDED 6
MONTHS).

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Mauricio violated the principle of confidentiality between him and
complainant? YES