JULIAN PENILLA VS. ALCID, JR., A.C. No. 9149, SEPT.

4, 2013 (9149 duty to

client)
Facts: Julian Penilla brought his Volkswagen beetle to a repair shop. Despite full payment,
the shop failed to repair his car. This incident prompted Julian to hire Atty. Alcid, who advised
that Julian should file an estafa case against the shop and proceeded to collect P30,000 as
attorneys fees and P10,000 as filing fee. However, the case was dismissed. A subsequent
motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Atty. Alcid then presented the option
of filing a case for specific performance. Julian gave another P10,000 for the filing fee.
Thereafter, Atty. Alcid failed to apprise Julian of the status of his case. Julian later learned
that the case for specific performance was dismissed. He also found out that the filing fee
was only P2,440 and not P10,000, as earlier stated by Atty. Alcid. Julian filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline an administrative case
against Alcid for gross negligence.
Issue: Is respondent guilty of gross negligence?
Ruling: Yes, the Court ruled that respondent, Atty. Alcid, committed professional negligence
under Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also violated
Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code and the Lawyers Oath. The Court held that a lawyer
may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties,
or an odious deportment unbecoming an attorney. A lawyer must at no time be wanting in
probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar,
but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein.
The Court stated that Atty. Alcid failed to serve his client with competence and
diligence when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts warranted the filing of a
civil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed,
respondent committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance
and damages before the RTC. The complaint, having an alternative prayer for payment of
damages, should have been filed with the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over
complainants claim which amounts to only P36,000. x x x. The errors committed by
respondent x x x were so basic and could have been easily averted had he been more
diligent and circumspect in his role as counsel for complainant.