THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12412. September 16, 2020.]
RUSSELL PARSONS and VICTORIA PARSONS, complainants,vs. ATTY. CHARITA R. AGDON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12412 (Russell Parsons and Victoria Parsons, Complainants, v. Atty. Charita R. Agdon, Respondent). — This administrative case stems from a complaint 1 filed by complainants Russel and Victoria Parsons (Spouses Parsons) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Charita R. Agdon (Atty. Agdon) for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Antecedents
In their complaint, Spouses Parsons alleged that they secured the services of Atty. Agdon for their adoption of Lucille and Sandra Jusay. In handling the adoption case, Spouses Parsons claimed Atty. Agdon was a fraud; an inefficient lawyer who took advantage of their trust and confidence, charging them exorbitant fees. Allegedly, Atty. Agdon charged a total of Php300,000.00 for the adoption case. 2
Spouses Parson partially paid Atty. Agdon the amount of Php150,000.00 in December 2011. However, Atty. Agdon filed the petition for adoption before the Regional Trial Court of Rosario, Batangas (RTC) only in February 2013, or thirteen (13) months after the 50% partial payment. After complainant Victoria Parsons testified before the RTC in May 2014, Spouses Victoria never heard from Atty. Agdon again. They later found out that Atty. Agdon changed phone numbers without notifying them. With relentless effort, Spouses Parsons were able to reach Atty. Agdon in February 2015, but the latter merely told them that a court order was forthcoming. 3
In October 2015, Spouses Parsons learned for the first time that their petition for adoption was already dismissed by the RTC on 2 June 2015 for being the wrong remedy. Unfortunately, Atty. Agdon never bothered to inform them about the dismissal of their case. Worse, Spouses Parsons found out that Atty. Agdon failed to file an application for adoption before the Inter Country Adoption Board (ICAB). This, despite Atty. Agdon's representations that she already submitted the documentary requirements before the ICAB. 4
In her defense, Atty. Agdon denied the accusations against her. She claimed that the fees were not exorbitant since these were commensurate to the work she rendered. Atty. Agdon further maintained that she served her clients in the best way possible, and neither did she take advantage of them nor violated any rules. According to her, lawyers are not insurers of the outcome of the case. Thus, even if the decision rendered by the trial court was unfavorable to the client, she should not be blamed for it in the absence of negligence on her part. 5
Findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
IBP Investigating Commissioner Gina H. Mirano-Jesena found Atty. Agdon negligent under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 6
Rule 18.03 enjoins lawyers not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to them and their negligence in connection therewith shall render them liable. Similarly, under Rule 18.04, lawyers are duty-bound to apprise their clients of the status and developments of the case and all other information relevant thereto. 7 Considering Atty. Agdon's negligence, the Investigating Commissioner recommended her suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
By its 22 February 2018 Resolution, 8 the Board or Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, viz.:
CBD Case No. 15-4825Russel Parsons and
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner imposing upon the Respondent the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for six (6) months. 9
Issue
Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility which would warrant the imposition administrative disciplinary sanctions.
Ruling of the Court
We adopt the findings of the IBP, except for the recommended penalty. The Court finds Atty. Agdon's actions sufficient to warrant her suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer owes his or her client competent and zealous legal representation:
CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 18.03. — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04. — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
Lawyers are not required to represent anyone who consults them on legal matters. Neither is an acceptance of a client or case a guarantee of victory. However, being a service-oriented occupation, lawyers are expected to observe diligence and exhibit professional behavior in all their dealings with their clients. Lawyers should be mindful of the trust and confidence, not to mention the time and money, reposed in them by their clients. 10
Atty. Agdon failed to observe the required diligence and professional behavior in handling the adoption case. As correctly noted by the IBP, the adoption case was dismissed by the RTC because complainant Russel Parsons is not a qualified alien who may adopt under Section 7 (b) 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. Thus, the adoption should have been processed through RA 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995. Worse, Atty. Agdon represented that she had filed an application with the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB), stringing along Spouses Victoria that their adoption case stands a chance. Contrary to the representations of Atty. Agdon, the Certification issued by Bernadette B. Abejo, Executive Director of ICAB, showed no record of any adoption application filed on behalf of Spouses Parsons. 12
Likewise, Atty. Agdon miserably failed to carry out one of her fundamental duties as counsel, i.e., giving periodic and timely updates to her clients regarding the status of their case. In her Answer, 13 Atty. Agdon admitted sending the following email response to one of Spouses Parsons numerous requests for update. Her response partially reads:
x x x This is one of my priority cases, it's just that adoption cases cannot be rushed. I have so much experiences on this already and I do not want any complications once the petition is already filed in court. I just don't want to entertain any possibility of having the same dismissed. The only shortcoming I have on you is that I did not periodically inform you of what is happening here and that is because I know and I believe that you have given your full trust and confidence in me. x x x14 [Emphasis supplied.]
Through her response, Atty. Agdon exhibited lack of care in dealing with her clients. Indubitably, the full trust and confidence reposed to her by Spouses Parsons is not a valid excuse to disregard her duty to periodically inform them of the status of their case. Moreover, Atty. Agdon admitted awareness of her "shortcoming," thus, she should have been more circumspect and diligent in promptly notifying her clients of the dismissal of the adoption case. Unfortunately, Atty. Agdon did not even bother to notify Spouses Parsons about the RTC Order despite numerous requests for updates.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of attorneys to inform their clients of whatever important information they may have acquired affecting their client's case. They should notify their clients of any adverse decision to enable their clients to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the clients informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and loss or trust and confidence in the attorney. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client's interests. 15
Regarding the penalty, this Court has imposed a suspension of one (1) year for a similar infraction. In Nebreja v. Atty. Reonal, a lawyer who neglected his client's cause and failed to inform his client of the true status or the case was suspended from the practice or law for a period of one (1) year. 16
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Charita R. Agdon is hereby SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. She is ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of her duties.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon receipt by Atty. Charita R. Agdon of a copy of this Resolution. She shall inform this Court and the Office of the Bar Confidant in writing of the date or receipt thereof. Copies of this Resolution shall be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this Resolution to all courts concerned.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 177-178.
4.Id. at 178.
5.Id. at 20, 22, and 28.
6.Id. at 181.
7.Id. at 180.
8.Id. at 174.
9.Id.
10.Spouses Gimena v. Vijiga, A.C. No. 11828, 22 November 2017.
11. (b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that he/she has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her adopted son/daughter: Provided, Further, That the requirements on residency and certification of the alien's qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.
12.Rollo, pp. 179-180.
13.Id. at 20-30.
14.Id. at 21.
15.See Layos v. Villanueva, 749 Phil. 1-9 (2014); A.C. No. 8085 (Resolution), 01 December 2014.
16.Nebreja v. Atty. Reonal, A.C. No. 9896, 19 March 2014.