A.C. No. 6238 (Formerly CBD Case No. 00-762) - LINDA VILLARIASA-RIESENBECK, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JAYNES C. ABARRIENTOS.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, he apprised complainant that the P5,000 for the petition will only be paid if he decided to file one. [18] Respondent admits instructing complainant to secure certified true copies of the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals, but denies instructing her to go to Manila to get it. [19] He likewise denies ever telling Johannes in the first week of June 2000 that a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review had been filed. [20] In her Reply [21] to respondents answer, complainant points to the Joint Affidavit [22] of Nesa Y. Bentulan, her landlady, and Marilyn Baay, the latters housemaid, who both averred that neither of them received any phone call or visit from respondent or any of his personnel. Complainant avers that they are the ones with whom respondents personnel would have to talk to because the phone number she left with respondent belonged to Bentulan. They are also the ones with whom respondents messenger would have to talk to in the compound where she lived. [23] After investigating the matter, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found respondent to have violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. [24] In Resolution No. XVI-2003-173, issued on September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD findings, and recommended to this Court that respondent be suspended for four months. It was likewise recommended that respondent be ordered to refund the P5,000 complainant alleges she paid for the petition. [25] We are in full accord with the recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. The proven facts of this case are contrary to respondents assertion that his sole obligation to complainant was to file the Motion for Reconsideration. The description of legal services in the official receipts that he himself issued for the two partial payments complainant made shows the extent of legal services he contracted to render. The first receipt reads as follows: Received from LINDA RIESENBECK the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) representing the following: PARTICULARS AMOUNT Re: Partial Payment for Preparation of Motion for Reconsideration & eventually Petition for Review to the Supreme Court case of Linda Riesenbeck vs. MAGICCORP CA-G.R. CV-45655 - - - P5,000.00 Balance Remaining: P5,000.00 to be paid upon filing of the Motion for Reconsideration; P5,000.00 to be paid on or before October 30, 2000. (SGD.) ATTY. JAYNES C. ABARRIENTOS Cebu City, Philippines, February 24, 2000. [26] The second reads as follows: Received from LINDA RIESENBECK the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) representing the following: PARTICULARS AMOUNT Re: Additional Partial Payment for the Preparation of Motion for Reconsideration & Petition for Review case of Linda Riesenbeck vs. MAGICCORP - - - P5,000.00 Balance Remaining: P5,000.00 to be paid upon submission of the Petition for Review to the Supreme Court . (SGD.) ATTY. JAYNES C. ABARRIENTOS Cebu City, Phil