Rollon V Naraval

Rollon v Naraval "filing and service fee" and thereby gave her hope that
her case would be acted upon

FACTS:
Moreover, lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their
Case involves a letter-complaint filed by Rollon client's money and property that may come into their
against Atty. Naraval. possession (Canon 16).
Complaint alleges that Rollon seeked Atty. Naraval's As respondent obviously did nothing on the case of
assistance in a case for Collection of Sum of Money complainant, the amount she had given was never
with prayer for attachment. applied to the filing fee. His failure to return her
Atty. Naraval agreed to be Rollon's lawyer and money upon demand gave rise to the presumption
required her to pay 8,000 for the filing and partial that he had converted it to his own use and thereby
service fee. betrayed the trust she had reposed in him. His failure
to do so constituted a gross violation of professional
When Rollon’s son made a follow-up, she was ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal
informed that Atty. Naraval failed to act on his case profession.
because he was busy. Several follow-ups were made
but no action was done. The CPR further states:
Rollon decided to withdraw the case retrieve the CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
amount paid and the documents pertaining to the case his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
but despite several follow-ups, Atty. Naraval always confidence reposed in him.
said that he cannot return the documents because they CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with
were in his house and cannot return the 8K because he
competence and diligence.
has no money.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
Recommendation of Investigating Officer Pacheco: entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
Suspension from the practice of law for 1 year for therewith shall render him liable.
neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18 Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep his client informed
of the CPR. of the status of his case and shall respond within a
IBP Board of Governors: recommended suspension reasonable time to the client's request for information.
from the practice of law for 2 years for violation of Lawyers may decline employment and refuse to accept
Rule 15 and 18 of the CPR and restitution of 8K to representation if they are not in a position to carry it
Rollon. out effectively or competently. However, once they
ISSUE: WON Atty. Naraval violated Canons 15 and agree to handle a case, attorneys are required to
18. undertake the task with zeal, care, and utmost
devotion.
RULING:
Acceptance of money from a client establishes
Yes. Atty. Rollon did not only violate Canons 15 and attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty
18, but also Canons 16 and 17. of fidelity to the client's cause.
Canon 15 of the CPR requires that lawyers give their Hence, lawyers may accept only as many cases as they
candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit or can efficiently handle. OW, their clients would be
lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor prejudiced. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves
understating their evaluation thereof. full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
regardless of importance. If they do any less, then they
Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of
fail their lawyer's oath.
success is not only a function, but also an obligation on
the part of lawyers. If they find that their client's cause ITC, after receiving the 8K as filing and partial service
is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise fee, Atty. Naraval failed to render any legal service in
the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to relation to the case of Rollon.
traverse the incontrovertible.
Continuous inaction despite repeated follow-ups
Respondent should have given her a candid, honest reveals his cavalier attituded and appalling
opinion on the merits and the status of the case. indifference toward his client's cause. He also
unjustifiably failed to return the files of the case
Complainant’s case had been decided against the
entrusted to him and kept the money she likewise
latter. In fact, the judgment had long become final and
entrusted to him.
executory. But he withheld such vital information
from complainant. Instead, he demanded P8,000 as
Therefore, for violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Atty. Naraval is suspended from the practice of law
for 2 years and must restitute Complainant’s 8,000 plus
interest

Rollon V Naraval

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rollon V Naraval

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rollon V Naraval

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rollon v Naraval "filing and service fee" and thereby gave her hope that

her case would be acted upon

You might also like