Penilla vs. Alcid, Jr.
2
Julian Penilla vs. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid Jr. A.C. No. 9149 September 4, 21! "acts# Plaintiff brought his favorite Volkswagen beetle to a repair shop. Despite fu the shop failed to repair the beetle. This prompted Julian to hire respondent Atty. him P!,!!! as attorney"s fees and P#!,!!! as filing fees. Atty. Alcid sent a deman the shop failed to return the payment. $e filed an estafa case before Prosecutor"s (ffice, which was then dismissed. $e filed a motion for reconsideratio denied for lack of merit. Atty. Alcid then presented the option of filing a case fo performance. Plaintiff gave another P#!,!!! for the filing fee. Despite repeated atte plaintiff failed to see respondent Atty Alcid again. $e learned that the case for specif performance was dismissed. $e also found out that the filing fee was o P#!,!!!, as earlier stated by %uintin. Julian filed before the +ntegrated ar of th 'ommission on ar Discipline + P-' D/ an administrative case against %uin negligence. $ssue# +s respondent guilty of gross negligence0 %ulin&# 1es, the 'ourt ruled that respondent, Atty. Alcid, committed professi under 'anon #2 and 3ule #2.!* of the 'ode of Professional 3esponsibility. $e also v 'anon #4 and 3ule #2.! of the 'ode and the 5awyer"s (ath. The 'ourt held that a la be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his odious deportment unbecoming an attorney. A lawyer must at no time be wanting in pr moral fibers which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the ar, bu essential demands for his continued membership therein. The 'ourt 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 fil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismiss committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance a before the 3T'. The complaint, having an alternative prayer for payment of have been filed with the 6unicipal Trial 'ourt which has 7urisdiction over complain which amounts to only P8,!!!. 9 9 9. The errors committed by respondent 9 9 9 were and could have been easily averted had he been more diligent and circumspect in his counsel for complainant.
-
Upload
precious-ed -
Category
Documents
-
view
112 -
download
4
description
forensics, legal medicine
Transcript of Penilla vs. Alcid, Jr.
Julian Penilla vs. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid Jr.A.C. No. 9149
September 4, 2013Facts:
Plaintiff brought his favorite Volkswagen beetle to a repair shop. Despite full payment, the shop failed to repair the beetle. This prompted Julian to hire respondent Atty. Alcid, and gave him P30,000 as attorneys fees and P10,000 as filing fees. Atty. Alcid sent a demand letter, but the shop failed to return the payment. He filed an estafa case before the Quezon City Prosecutors Office, which was then dismissed. He filed a motion for reconsideration. This was denied for lack of merit. Atty. Alcid then presented the option of filing a case for specific performance. Plaintiff gave another P10,000 for the filing fee. Despite repeated attempts, plaintiff failed to see respondent Atty Alcid again. He 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 Quintin. Julian filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) an administrative case against Quintin 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 alawyer 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 fibers 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 toserve his client with competence and diligencewhen he filed acriminal 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.
