You are on page 1of 2

I.

Methodology
II. Abstract
III. Digests

Consorcia S. Rollon vs Atty. Camilo Naraval (A.C. No. 6424) March 04, 2005

a. Facts
Complainant, Consorcia S. Rollon, alleged in her letter-complaint that
sometime in October of 2000, she, along with her son, Freddie Rollon, went to
the law office of respondent, Atty, Camilo Naraval, for assistance in a pending
civil case against her. The respondent lawyer allegedly agreed to be her
lawyer and required her to pay a sum of eight thousand pesos (Php 8,000.00)
for the filing and partial service fee. Complainant complied with the
instruction given by respondent and ordered her son to go back to
respondents law office two weeks later to pay the said amount. For the
following weeks, complainants son would go back to respondents son would
go to respondents law office but he would always be told that respondent
was unable to act on her mothers case due to the fact that respondent
lawyer was too busy.
By 29th of November 2001, complainant decided to take back the
documents pertaining to her case and the sum of money she gave to the
respondent as payment. Unfortunately, when her son went to the
respondents office, respondent said that he cannot return the documents
since they were in his house and that he cannot return the money as well
since he has no money.
Tired with respondents inaction and refusal to return the
complainants money and documents, she decided to take the matter to the
IBP President of Davao City and the Commissioner on Bar Discipline.

b. Proceedings
The letter-complaint was filed by the complainant to the Davao City
Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the 29 th of November
2001. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) required respondent to file
his answer to the complaint twice. However, respondent failed to comply with
both directives thus the IBP CBD proceeded with the investigation ex parte.
Complainant submitted the required position paper to the IBP Commissioner
on 19 December 2002. The Investigating Commissioner recommended in his
report on 16 October 2003 that respondent should be suspended from the
practice of law for one year for neglect of duty and violations of Canons 15
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, the IBP Board of
Governors imposed the penalty of two-year suspension and ordered
respondent to return complainants Php 8,000.00 in the resolution they issued
on 27 February 2004.

c. Issue
Is respondent lawyer is guilty of neglect of duty and of violating
Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

d. Ruling
Yes. The Court ruled that the resolution issued by the IBP Board of
Governors did not err in its findings that respondent was guilty of the charges
imputed against respondent. Respondent

e. Doctrine

f. Significant Separate Opinion

g. Publication/Citation

IV. Sources

V. Index of Documents