A.C. No. 11113 - CLEO B. DONGGA-AS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES, ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, AND ATTY. ANGELES GRANDEA, OF THE ANGELES, GRANDEA & PALER LAW OFFICE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, complainant paid respondents P100,000.00 which was duly received by Atty. Cruz-Angeles. [2] From then on, complainant constantly followed-up his case with Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler. However, despite his constant prodding, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler could not present any petition and instead, offered excuses for the delay, saying that: ( a ) they still had to look for a psychologist to examine Mutya; ( b ) they were still looking for a "friendly" court and public prosecutor; and ( c ) they were still deliberating where to file the case. [3] They promised that the petition would be filed on or before the end of June 2004, but such date passed without any petition being filed. As an excuse, they reasoned out that the petition could not be filed since they have yet to talk to the judge who they insinuated will favorably resolve complainant's petition. [4] Sometime in the third week of July 2004, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler asked for an additional payment of P250,000.00 in order for them to continue working on the case. Hoping that his petition would soon be filed, complainant dutifully paid the said amount on July 23, 2004, which was again received by Atty. Cruz-Angeles. [5] However, to complainant's dismay, no appreciable progress took place. When complainant inquired about the delay in the filing of the case, Atty. Cruz-Angeles attempted to ease his worries by saying that the draft petition was already submitted to the judge for editing and that the petition will soon be finalized. [6] In the last week of September 2004, complainant received a text message from Atty. Cruz-Angeles informing him that the National Statistics Office bore no record of his marriage. The latter explained then that this development was favorable to complainant's case because, instead of the proposed petition for annulment of marriage, they would just need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. She also informed complainant that they would send someone to verify the records of his marriage at the Local Civil Registrar of La Trinidad, Benguet (Civil Registrar) where his marriage was celebrated. However, upon complainant's independent verification through his friend, he discovered that the records of his marriage in the Civil Registrar were intact, and that the alleged absence of the records of his marriage was a mere ruse to cover up the delay in the filing of the petition. [7] Utterly frustrated with the delay in the filing of his petition for annulment, complainant went to respondents' law office to terminate their engagement and to demand for a refund of the aggregate amount of P350,000.00 he earlier paid them. However, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler refused to return the said amount, and to complainant's surprise, sent him two (2) billing statements dated October 5, 2004 [8] and October 10, 2004 [9] in the amounts of P258,000.00 and P324,000.00, respectively. Notably, the October 5, 2004 billing statement included a fee for "consu