LGM206 Case 2

Name: Peralta, Alexis Victoria C.
Class: LGM206 (Social Responsibility and Legal Ethics)

Section: LGM2B
Title of the Case: WILSON CHUA, complainant versus ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ,
respondent. A.C. No. 9880, 28 November 2016.
FACTS: Wilson Chua filed a case with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission
on Bar Discipline on October 20, 2003 against Atty. Diosdado Jimenez for grave misconduct,
malpractice, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. It is for the reason that
the complainant alleged that he entered into a retainership agreement with the respondent for
the latter to handle all his legal problems, with particular emphasis on those that needed filing in
the courts. The complainant also gave the respondent a total of ₱235,127.00 for the filing fees
and likewise entrusted all the necessary documents needed for it.
The complainant likewise alleged that, for the last seven years prior, he had never attended a
single hearing on any case that he had assigned to respondent and and in a case in which he
was a defendant. Respondent allegedly would advise him of upcoming hearings only to cancel
them last minute due purportedly to cancellations, postponements, or resetting of the hearings.
Due to the mentioned fact the complainant had written to the respondent several times for the
return of the documents he had entrusted to him as well as the amount of ₱235,127.00. On
September 24, 2003, he terminated respondent’s legal services for failure to file the necessary
cases, the very object of the retainership agreement, and to return the sum of ₱235,127.00.
However, the respondent did not reply and this led the complainant to seek help from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP then directed the respondent to file his Answer
within 15 days. Instead of filing an Answer, the respondent requested for additional 15 days
within which to comply. Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars and another
Urgent Motion to File Answer. However, for being a prohibited pleading, the IBP denied the
motion for bill of particulars.
It is for the respondent’s delaying tactics that made the IBP declared respondent in default and
set a mandatory conference. During the mandatory conference it was found that he had violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility and should therefore be disciplined. Due to the reason
that all the allegations and evidences presented by the complainant was valid and matched that
the respondent has not been candid with Complainant in terms of his handling of the
aforementioned accounts contrary to the demands of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and also negligent in not acting on the cases endorsed to him by Complainant. Besides that,
Respondent has not returned any of the papers or documents demanded by the client after his
services were terminated. Nothing on the record shows that he returned the documents and
files requested. The records of the case were thereafter transmitted by the IBP to this Court
pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Before this Court is the long standing controversy associated with a retainership
agreement - does a lawyer have the right to hold on to a client's documents, even after the
relationship of lawyer-client has been terminated, due to non-payment of his or her professional
legal fees? Or is this a ground for disciplinary action? Did respondent violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he failed to file the cases endorsed by complainant despite
receipt of filing fees?
HELD/RATIO: No, the lawyer does not have the right to hold on to a client’s documents after the
relationship of lawyer-client has been terminated. While Yes, the respondent violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility when he failed to file the cases endorsed by the complainant.
Due to the reason that in accordance with the Code of Professional Responsibility the following
Canons were violated by the respondent:
● Canon 15: A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients
● Canon 18.03: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
● Canon 18.04: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez is found GUILTY of violation of the

Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath and is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for six (6) months and ORDERED to return to complainant within
ten (10) days from notice all the pertinent records and documents, and the total amount of
₱165,127.00 and WARNED that commission of the same or similar infraction in the future
will merit a more severe penalty. Respondent is also directed to submit proof of his
compliance within 30 days from receipt of this Decision.

LGM206 Case 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LGM206 Case 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LGM206 Case 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Name: Peralta, Alexis Victoria C.

Class: LGM206 (Social Responsibility and Legal Ethics)

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez is found GUILTY of violation of the

You might also like