Datu Ismael Malangas Vs. Atty. Paul C. Zaide; A.C. No.

10675; May 31, 2016

FACTS:

On March 6, 2003, complainant Malangas figured in a vehicular accident which made him
crippled and bed ridden. To recover damages from the said accident, complainant engaged the respondent
lawyer's professional services. Malangas gave Atty. Zaide P20,000.00 as acceptance fee and P50,000.00
as filing fees; that subsequently, respondent lawyer filed on his behalf a complaint for damages before the
RTC of Iligan City. Complainant later discovered, that his Complaint had been dismissed by the RTC
because of "failure to prosecute," for the reason that respondent lawyer did not attend two hearings in the
case. Worse, respondent lawyer filed a Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel effectively leaving him
without counsel to prosecute his case.

Complainant accused respondent lawyer of committing acts of dishonesty, breach of trust, and
violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Respondent lawyer challenged the allegations and specifically
denied that he received an acceptance fee of P20,000.00, and explained that complainant was already an
established client of the law office he was working for. The IBP Board of Governors approved the
recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to suspend Atty. Zaide from practice of law
for 2 years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Zaide is guilty of committing Dishonesty, Breach of Trust and Negligence.

RULING:

The court find respondent lawyer guilty of professional misconduct and of violating Canons
1, 16, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Respondent lawyer's refusal to account
for the funds given to him, especially his refusal to return the amount paid in excess of what was required
as docket fees, clearly violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the CPR. The Code of Professional
Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted
to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship. Any lawyer who does not live up to this duty must be
prepared to take the consequences of his waywardness. Respondent lawyer also violated Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the CPR for failing to appear at hearings and filing the appropriate pleadings causing the delay of
the case. The court approved the suspension of Atty. Zaide from practice of law for 2 years and ordered
him to return the acceptance fee and docket fees to the complainant.