A.C. No. 6441 - VIOLETA R. TAHAW, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JEREMIAS P. VITAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly by this Court. In a Complaint [ 2] dated 11 March 2002, Violeta R. Tahaw claimed that she secured the services of respondent for filing the appropriate action for the partition of a real property located in Makati City sometime in 1999. As agreed upon, petitioner delivered to respondent four (4) checks in the total amount of P30,000.00 representing payment of the latters professional fee. However, after almost a year without petitioner hearing from respondent about the case he would file in court, petitioner sent respondent a letter-inquiry as to the status of the case. Respondent assured complainant that he had already filed the appropriate case in Makati. Not convinced by her counsels assurance, complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court of Makati City to check if a case was indeed filed by respondent for and in her behalf. A Certification dated 15 August 2000 issued by the assistant Clerk of Court of Makati City confirmed complainants suspicion that respondent did not file the case as agreed upon. She wrote respondent informing him that she is terminating the latters services as counsel and demanded the refund of the P30,000.00. Respondent failed to refund the aforesaid amount, and complainant was thus prompted to seek the assistance of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP, responding to complainants predicament and wrote respondent two (2) letters, [3] informing the latter of complainants grievance and asking his position thereon. Respondent, through a letter [4] to the IBP, claimed that the problem arose from a miscommunication between client and counsel. In addition, respondent insinuated that the case he was supposed to file for the complainant was complicated by the filing of other earlier complaints which he was not privy to. He promised to refund the complainant the P30,000.00. The IBP acknowledged receipt of respondents response and instructed him to issue six (6) postdated checks, each in the amount of P5,000.00 and dated a month apart, and to deliver the same to the IBPs office to facilitate the return of the P30,000.00 to complainant. Despite the instruction, respondent failed to refund the amount to complainant, and succeeded only in having complainant go back and forth to his office. Complainant once more wrote to respondent regarding the checks, only to be told by respondent that he will just send the checks through his secretary. Complainant then filed a complaint for disbarment or suspension with the IBP. For his part, respondent denied that he obligated himself to file the partition case upon receipt of the P30,000.00 as claimed by complainant. He averred that the said amount represents consultation fees, research fees, and minimal acceptance fees. [5] He stated that complainant failed to disclose to him circumstances which would have adverse effects on the case sought to be filed [6] and that when he confronted complainant about these, the latter became lukewarm. [7] Furthermore