Atty. Alcid was found guilty of gross negligence by the Court for his representation of client Julian Penilla. Alcid filed an estafa case against a repair shop on behalf of Penilla that was dismissed, then filed for specific performance and collected additional fees from Penilla without properly informing him of the case status. The Court ruled Alcid committed professional negligence by failing to competently serve his client when he filed the wrong cases and misled Penilla about fees. Lawyers have a duty of diligence, probity and moral fiber, and Alcid's errors showed a lack of diligence that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Alcid was found guilty of gross negligence by the Court for his representation of client Julian Penilla. Alcid filed an estafa case against a repair shop on behalf of Penilla that was dismissed, then filed for specific performance and collected additional fees from Penilla without properly informing him of the case status. The Court ruled Alcid committed professional negligence by failing to competently serve his client when he filed the wrong cases and misled Penilla about fees. Lawyers have a duty of diligence, probity and moral fiber, and Alcid's errors showed a lack of diligence that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Alcid was found guilty of gross negligence by the Court for his representation of client Julian Penilla. Alcid filed an estafa case against a repair shop on behalf of Penilla that was dismissed, then filed for specific performance and collected additional fees from Penilla without properly informing him of the case status. The Court ruled Alcid committed professional negligence by failing to competently serve his client when he filed the wrong cases and misled Penilla about fees. Lawyers have a duty of diligence, probity and moral fiber, and Alcid's errors showed a lack of diligence that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Alcid was found guilty of gross negligence by the Court for his representation of client Julian Penilla. Alcid filed an estafa case against a repair shop on behalf of Penilla that was dismissed, then filed for specific performance and collected additional fees from Penilla without properly informing him of the case status. The Court ruled Alcid committed professional negligence by failing to competently serve his client when he filed the wrong cases and misled Penilla about fees. Lawyers have a duty of diligence, probity and moral fiber, and Alcid's errors showed a lack of diligence that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
JULIAN PENILLA VS. ALCID, JR., A.C. No. 9149, SEPT.
4, 2013 (9149 duty to
client) Facts: Julian Penilla brought his Volkswagen beetle to a repair shop. Despite full payment, the shop failed to repair his car. This incident prompted Julian to hire Atty. Alcid, who advised that Julian should file an estafa case against the shop and proceeded to collect P30,000 as attorneys fees and P10,000 as filing fee. However, the case was dismissed. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Atty. Alcid then presented the option of filing a case for specific performance. Julian gave another P10,000 for the filing fee. Thereafter, Atty. Alcid failed to apprise Julian of the status of his case. Julian later learned that the case for specific performance was dismissed. He also found out that the filing fee was only P2,440 and not P10,000, as earlier stated by Atty. Alcid. Julian filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline an administrative case against Alcid for gross negligence. Issue: Is respondent guilty of gross negligence? Ruling: Yes, the Court ruled that respondent, Atty. Alcid, committed professional negligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also violated Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code and the Lawyers Oath. The Court held that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming an attorney. A lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar, but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein. The Court stated that Atty. Alcid failed to serve his client with competence and diligence when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, respondent committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC. The complaint, having an alternative prayer for payment of damages, should have been filed with the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over complainants claim which amounts to only P36,000. x x x. The errors committed by respondent x x x were so basic and could have been easily averted had he been more diligent and circumspect in his role as counsel for complainant.
II. The Court of Appeals Erred in Finding That There Can Be No Valid Partition Among The Heirs of The Late Efraim Santibañez Until After The Will Has Been Probated