A.C. No.

6166               October 2, 2009 MARIA EARL BEVERLY C. CENIZA, Complainant, vs. ATTY.

VIVIAN G. RUBIA, Respondent.

Facts:
Complainant sought the legal services of the respondent in regard to the share of her mother-in-law in the estate of her
husband Carlos Ceniza. As she had no money to pay for attorney's fees since her mother-in-law would arrive from the
United States only in June
2002, respondent made her sign a promissory note for P32,000.00, which amount was lent by Domingo Natavio
After her mother-in-law arrived and paid the loan, respondent furnished them a copy of the complaint for partition and
recovery of ownership/possession representing... legitime but with no docket number on it. They kept on following up the
progress of the complaint.
However, three months lapsed before respondent informed them that it was already filed in court. It was then that they
received a copy of the complaint with "Civil Case No. 4198"... and a rubber stamped "RECEIVED" thereon. However,
when complainant verified the status of the case with the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur, she
was informed that no case with said title and docket number was filed.
According to her, when her staff Jan Kirt Lester Soledad was at the RTC Office of the Clerk of Court, she called him
through cellular phone and directed him to... stop the filing of the complaint as the same lacked certain attachments.
However, one copy thereof was already stamped "RECEIVED" by the receiving court personnel, who also assigned a
docket number. She kept the copies of the complaint, including the one with the stamp, to be... filed later when the
attachments are complete.
Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent from the practice of law for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law and
for falsification of public document.
Issues: Whether or not Atty. Rubia is guilty of violation of Rule 18.03 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
Ruling: Yes, respondent Rubia is guilty of violation of Rule 18.03 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Rule 18.03 states that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. CANON 22 provides that “A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.”
In the present case, the Court find that respondent committed some acts for which she should be disciplined or
administratively sanctioned. There was nothing illegal or reprehensible in respondent’s act of charging an acceptance fee
of P32,000.00, which amount appears to be reasonable under the circumstances. The impropriety lies in the fact that she
suggested that complainant borrow money from Domingo Natavio for the payment thereof. This act impresses upon the
Court that respondent would do nothing to the cause of complainant’s mother-in-law unless payment of the acceptance fee
is made. Her duty to render legal services to her client with competence and diligence should not depend on the payment
of acceptance fee, which was in this case promised to be paid upon the arrival of complainant’s mother-in-law in June
2002, or barely a month after respondent accepted the case. Respondent failed to maintain an open line of communication
with her client regarding the status of their complaint. Clearly, respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath which imposes
upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice.

When a lawyer accepts to handle a case, whether for a fee or gratis et amore, he undertakes to give his utmost attention,
skill and competence to it, regardless of its significance. Thus, his client, whether rich or poor, has the right to expect that
he will discharge his duties diligently and exert his best efforts, learning and ability to prosecute or defend his (client’s)
cause with reasonable dispatch. Failure to fulfill his duties will subject him to grave administrative liability as a member
of the Bar. For the overriding need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the legal profession demands that
an erring lawyer should be sanctioned.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 18.03
and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.