A.C. No. 5039 - SPOUSES EDUARDO AND TERESITA GARCIA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ROLANDO S. BALA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, complainants had the right to be updated on the developments and status of the case for which they had engaged the services of respondent. [26] But he apparently denied them that right. Furthermore, for using unsavory words against complainants, he should also be sanctioned. Lawyers may be disciplined -- whether in their professional or in their private capacity -- for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor. [27] Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to "uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession" at all times. In addition, the Court notes the nonparticipation of respondent even in the present proceedings. He ignored the directive for him to file his comment, [28] just as he had disregarded the IBP hearing commissioner's orders [29] for the conduct of hearings, submission of documentary evidence and position paper. Never did he acknowledge or offer any excuse for his noncompliance. Clearly, his conduct manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities. Despite the fact that his profession and honor are at stake, he did not even bother to speak a word in his defense. Apparently, he has no wish to preserve the dignity and honor expected of lawyers and the legal profession. His demeanor is clearly demeaning. The Need to Reimburse the Money Paid Under the present factual circumstances, respondent should return the money paid by complainants. First , his legal services were virtually nullified by his recourse to the wrong remedy. Complainants would not have lost their right to appeal had he acted competently. Second, the legal fees were not commensurate to the services rendered. Complainants engaged his legal services to appeal the DARAB Decision, but all he did was to file a Notice of Appeal. [30] Additionally, he had already promised them a refund of the money paid, yet he failed to do so. The Court may ascertain how much attorney's fees are reasonable under the circumstances. [31] In the present case, the request of complainants for a full refund of the attorney's fees they had paid effectively challenged the contract; it was as though the parties had no express stipulation as to those fees. [32] Quantum meruit therefore applies. Quantum meruit -- meaning "as much as he deserves" -- is used as basis for determining a lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract. [33] Lawyers must be able to show that they are entitled to reasonable compensation for their efforts in pursuing their clients' case, taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of legal fees. [34] Based on the circumstances of the present case, the legal services actually rendered by respondent were too insignificant for remuneration because of the uselessness of the remedy he took. This Court has imposed the penalty of suspension for six months for a lawyer's negligence in failing to perfect an appeal. [35] Considering the similarity of the circumstances with those prevai