SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12146. October 10, 2018.]

(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-4040)

CARLOS V. LOPEZ , complainant, vs. ATTY. MILAGROS ISABEL A.

CRISTOBAL , respondent.

DECISION

CAGUIOA , J : p

Before this Court is an administrative complaint 1 led before the Commission

on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP) by Complainant
Carlos V. Lopez (Lopez) against Respondent Atty. Milagros Isabel A. Cristobal (Atty.
Cristobal).

The Factual Antecedents

Lopez alleged that sometime in May 2011, he engaged the services of

respondent Atty. Cristobal as his counsel in the case of Carlo V. Lopez v. Jesus A.
Manego, Peter Blair S. Agustin, and Rosalina Joson Pascual (subject case), docketed as
Civil Case No. 09-711, pending before the Regional Trial Court Branch 148 in Makati
City (RTC Branch 148).
Atty. Cristobal required the payment of an acceptance fee of Thirty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P35,000.00). Lopez deposited the said amount to Atty. Cristobal's
Metrobank Account No. 007-26551-3650, as evidenced by a copy of the deposit slip 2
attached to the instant Complaint.
On September 7, 2011, the RTC Branch 148 issued an Order requiring the parties
to file their respective position papers in connection with the subject case.
Lopez averred that despite knowledge of the lower court's directive, Atty.
Cristobal failed to file the position paper required by the lower court. Lopez also alleged
that Atty. Cristobal misrepresented to him that she already led their position paper in
court. CAIHTE

Lopez stated in his Complaint that Atty. Cristobal also did not attend the
hearings on the subject case and that she also deliberately refused to communicate
with Lopez. 3
In a letter 4 dated March 5, 2012, Lopez informed Atty. Cristobal of his decision
to stop her engagement as his counsel in the subject case and demanded that Atty.
Cristobal: (1) prepare and le her withdrawal of appearance in the subject case and
provide Lopez with a copy thereof; (2) return the acceptance fee of Thirty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P35,000.00). 5
Despite the written demand made by Lopez, Atty. Cristobal did not le her
withdrawal as counsel of Lopez. The Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 148
con rmed, in a Certi cation 6 dated August 30, 2012, that Atty. Cristobal had not yet
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 filed her withdrawal of appearance as counsel of Lopez.
On December 6, 2013, Lopez led a Veri ed Complaint before the CBD-IBP
praying that Atty. Cristobal be disciplined.
In her Answer 7 dated May 20, 2016, Atty. Cristobal dismissed the instant
complaint as completely baseless and not truthful, to wit:
x x x. On the contrary, respondent was actually able to act as counsel for
the complainant in Civil Case No. 09-711, as in fact that case was still pending
when respondent eventually left her retainer with the complainant. Whatever
delays or postponements which had occurred during respondent's
handling of Civil Case No. 09-711 was just the result of the usual
vicissitudes of litigation and on, some occasions, due to
circumstances which are sometimes beyond respondent's control .
2. That while respondent was initially paid her attorney's fee of
Php35,000.00, what respondent had done in handling the case was more than
commensurate to that fee considering the fact that:
a. Respondent had actually returned the sum of Php10,000 to the
complainant, as shown by the attached copies of the checks of Five
Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00) each issued and deposited to
complainant's account, marked as Annexes "A" and ["A-1"]; and
b. The balance of Php25,000.00 was a measly amount considering the
stature of respondent in the legal profession and that respondent
had merely accommodated the complainant when she agreed to
handle the case for him, as it involved different issues in different
offices;DETACa

c. On top of that, complainant was not conscientious and up-to-date in

the payment of the attorney's fees of the respondent. In fact,
complainant had even issued a check to respondent which he later
issued an order for the bank to stop payment because he had
insisted on bargaining for the fees that respondent was asking for.
Attached is a copy of the check issued by the complainant which he
had issued a stop payment order for, and an email from the
respondent telling the complainant that she does not want to
bargain for the services she will be rendering, marked as Annex "B"
and "C";
3. Due to the above considerations, the return by the respondent of
the sum of Php10,000.00 was enough to compensate for whatever
delays in the litigation of Civil Case No. 09-711 taking into
consideration the amount of actual legal work performed by the
respondent, the nature and di culty of the case and respondent's
stature in the legal profession.
4. While in the latter stage of the legal retainer of the respondent
with the complainant, the former was already nding it di cult to
accommodate and attend all the scheduled hearings of complainant's
case because of her ever increasing legal obligations with other
clients and other work commitments ; however, there was no damage or
prejudice caused upon the complainant at all. Actually the parting of the ways
of the two was due to the irreconcilable differences between [the two].
xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 6. That the case of the complainant (Civil Case No. 09-711) was not
actually lost or dismissed as borne by the very documents attached to the
herein complaint simply means that actually no damage or prejudice was
caused upon the complainant resulting from respondent's handling of that
case. Clearly, this instant disbarment complaint is just the product of an overly-
complaining or overreacting litigant who himself was not blameless as to why
respondent eventually left him for he was really a di cult client to deal with. 8
(Emphasis supplied) aDSIHc

Atty. Cristobal admitted that while she was aware of RTC Branch 148's directive
to le a position paper, she did not proceed to prepare and le the said position paper
on account of the continued refusal of Lopez to pay her accumulated legal fees. 9 Atty.
Cristobal claimed that Lopez caused payment to be stopped on a P27,000.00 check
that he had previously issued in her favor as further payment of her legal fees. She
alleged that Lopez kept insisting on bargaining for the attorney's fees that she was
asking for. 1 0

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos

(Investigating Commissioner Gomos) rendered a Report and Recommendation 1 1 on
November 25, 2016, recommending that Atty. Cristobal be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months, to wit:
4.7 Under the circumstances, the supposed "continued refusal" of the
complainant "to pay (respondent's) accumulated legal fees" should have
been a reason for her to have withdrawn from the case. The same is
sanctioned under Rule 22.01 (e) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
4.7.1 But Canon 22 is clear: A lawyer may withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances .
4.7.2 It is elementary that a lawyer who desires to retire from an action
without the consent of his client must le a petition for withdrawal
in court. 1 2 He must serve a copy of his petition for withdrawal upon
his client and the adverse party. 1 3 He should moreover present his
petition well in advance of the trial of the action to enable the client
to secure the services of another lawyer. 1 4
4.7.3 Notably, the respondent failed to observe the above procedural
requirement. 1 5 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
Investigating Commissioner Gomos did not give credence to Atty. Cristobal's
justification for her failure to prepare and file the required position paper:
4.8 Surely, the supposed refusal to pay of the complainant cannot be a
justi cation of the respondent's failure to prepare and le the required
position paper. The failure of the client to pay the agreed fees does not
warrant the lawyer's abandoning his client's cause. 1 6 After all, once a
lawyer agrees to take up the cause of the client, he owes delity and entire
devotion to that cause. ETHIDa

xxx xxx xxx

4.10 Clearly, the failure of the respondent to le the required position paper of
her client, and her failure to properly withdraw from the case, should render
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 her liable. 1 7
The dispositive portion of Investigating Commissioner Gomos' Report and
Recommendation reads as follows:
V. RECOMMENDATION
It is, therefore, respectfully recommended that the
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6)
months. 1 8 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
On June 17, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and
approving the ndings and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Gomos,
thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the ndings of the fact and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner imposing the penalty of six (6) months suspension
from the practice of law. 1 9 (Italics in the original)
Per certi cation of the O ce of the Bar Con dant, no motion for reconsideration
or petition for review has been filed by either party as of March 20, 2018. 2 0

The Court's Ruling

After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, the
Court upholds the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Cristobal's failure to
le the required position paper and her failure to properly withdraw from the case
reveals Atty. Cristobal's failure to live up to her duties as a lawyer in consonance with
the strictures of her oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). cSEDTC

The acts committed by Atty. Cristobal thus fall squarely within the prohibition of
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 and Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the CPR, which
provides:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR
GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 — A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following
cases:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct
in connection with the matter he is handling;
(b) When the client insists the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
these canons and rules;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 (c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services
or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Canon 18 clearly mandates that a lawyer is duty-bound to competently and
diligently serve his client once the former takes up the latter's cause. The lawyer owes
delity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and con dence reposed
upon him. Hence, his neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him amounts to inexcusable
negligence for which he must be administratively liable, 2 1 as in this case. The Court
nds no credence to Atty. Cristobal's defense that her failure to prepare and le the
required position paper was justi ed because of Lopez' refusal to pay her attorney's
fees. SDAaTC

Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the CPR, on the other hand, provides that an attorney
may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of
the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that
the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. 2 2 A lawyer who desires to retire
from an action without the written consent of his client must le a petition for
withdrawal in court. 2 3 He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the
adverse party at least three (3) days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the court
may treat the application as a "mere scrap of paper." 2 4
The circumstances of the case show that Atty. Cristobal made no such move.
The Court agrees with the ndings of the Investigating Commissioner that Atty.
Cristobal's defense of discharge as self-serving. Atty. Cristobal claimed that her return
of the case records to Lopez as well as the latter's acceptance of P10,000.00
effectively discharged her from her obligations as counsel for complainant. The Court
does not agree.
Atty. Cristobal clearly disregarded the mandate of Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the
CPR. Atty. Cristobal never sought the written consent of Lopez, his client or the
permission of the court. Atty. Cristobal also did not le a petition for withdrawal in
court.
Here, the circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the
amount of P35,000.00 as acceptance fee, Atty. Cristobal failed to render any legal
service in relation to the case of Lopez.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer requires sound judicial discretion
based on the surrounding facts. In similar cases where lawyers neglected their clients'
affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite
demand, the Court meted out the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. 2 5
From the foregoing, the Court nds a six-month suspension from the practice of
law appropriate as penalty for Atty. Cristobal's misconduct.
While the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings should only
revolve around the determination of the respondent-lawyer's administrative and not his
civil liability, it must be clari ed that this rule remains applicable only to claimed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 liabilities which are purely civil in nature — for instance, when the claim involves moneys
received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct and not
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement, such as the acceptance fee. 2 6
Considering that Atty. Cristobal's receipt of the P35,000.00 remains undisputed, the
Court finds the return of the remaining balance of P25,000.00, to be in order.
WHEREFORE , the Court nds Atty. Milagros Isabel A. Cristobal LIABLE for
violation of Canons 18 and 22 and Rules 18.03, 18.04 and 22.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and she is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months effective immediately upon receipt of this Decision. She is also
ORDERED to RETURN to complainant Carlos V. Lopez the remaining balance of
P25,000.00 from the P35,000.00 she received from the latter within ninety (90) days
from receipt of this Decision. Respondent shall submit to the Court proof of restitution
within ten (10) days from payment. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive will
warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. acEHCD

Let all the courts, through the O ce of the Court Administrator, as well as the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the O ce of the Bar Con dant, be noti ed of this
Decision and be it entered into respondent's personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe and A.B. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
J.C. Reyes, Jr., * J., is on wellness leave.

Footnotes
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018. On
wellness leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2. Id. at 8.
3. Id. at 3.

4. Id. at 13.
5. See id. at 6 and 8. The amount as stated in the Letter dated March 5, 2012 is P30,000.00.
6. Id. at 14.
7. Id. at 39-41.
8. Id. at 39-40.

9. Id. at 70.
10. Id. at 68.
11. Id. at 100-107.
12. See RUBEN E. AGPALO, COMMENT ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 376 (2004).
13. Id.
14. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 15. Rollo, p. 106.

16. COMMENT ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CODE OF

JUDICIAL CONDUCT, supra note 11, at 157.

17. Rollo, pp. 106-107.

18. Id. at 107.
19. Id. at 98.
20. Id. at 96-A.
21. Sps. Lopez v. Atty. Limos, 780 Phil. 113, 120 (2016).

22. ERNESTO L. PINEDA, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 267 (1995).

23. RUBEN E. AGPALO, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 359 (7th ed., 2002), citing In re Montagne
& Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577 (1904); see Alcantara, Jr. v. Judge Veloso, 159-A Phil. 988
(1975); Intestate Estate of the Deceased Domingo Sr. v. Aquino, 148 Phil. 486 (1971);
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 26.
24. Visitacion v. Manit, 137 Phil. 348, 356 (1969); G.A. Machineries, Inc. v. Januto, 151-A Phil. 5
(1973).
25. Maglente v. Atty. Agcaoili, Jr., 756 Phil. 116 (2015).
26. Pitcher v. Atty. Gagate, 719 Phil. 82, 94 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com