Lawyer Suspended for Neglecting Client's Land Titling Case for Five Years

The Supreme Court has reminded all lawyers that the practice of law is a profession, not a business, and that neglecting a client's legal matter is a serious ethical violation. In Brunet v. Atty. Guaren (A.C. No. 10164, March 10, 2014), the Court suspended a lawyer for six months for failing to act on a client's land titling case for five years and for appearing against his own clients without their consent.

The Facts

In February 1997, spouses Stephan and Virginia Brunet engaged the services of Atty. Ronald L. Guaren to secure the title to a residential lot they had acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres, Cebu. The agreed fee was P10,000.00, inclusive of expenses, with full payment due only after the title was delivered. The complainants gave an advance payment of P1,000.00 and later, on March 10, 1997, an additional P6,000.00 upon the lawyer's request.

From 1997 to 2001, the complainants repeatedly asked Atty. Guaren about the status of the titling. Each time, the lawyer assured them the matter was "in progress." However, no title was ever delivered. When the complainants demanded the return of their money, Atty. Guaren agreed but insisted on deducting P5,000.00 as his professional fees.

The complainants also discovered that Atty. Guaren had made a special appearance against them in a case before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court in Oslob, Cebu — despite the existing attorney-client relationship.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Guaren violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him and by appearing against his own clients.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Guaren guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 17 requires a lawyer to owe fidelity to the cause of the client and to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Canon 18 requires a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence.

The Court noted that Atty. Guaren admitted receiving P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee but failed to file the case for the titling of the lot even after five years had elapsed. This constituted a clear breach of his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence.

The Court emphasized that the practice of law is not a business or a money-making venture. As stated in Bengco v. Atty. Bernardo (A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012), the duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests.

The IBP Board of Governors had recommended a three-month suspension, but the Supreme Court increased the penalty to six months, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Neglect is a serious ethical violation. A lawyer who accepts a case and receives payment but fails to act on it for years violates Canons 17 and 18, even if the client did not fully pay the agreed fee.
• The practice of law is not a business. Lawyers must prioritize public service and the administration of justice over personal financial gain.
• Lawyers must not appear against their clients. Appearing against a client without written consent is a breach of the duty of fidelity, even if the appearance is made on behalf of another counsel.
• Clients have remedies. A client who believes their lawyer has neglected their case may file an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or the Supreme Court.
• Penalties can be severe. Suspension from the practice of law is a real consequence of neglect, and repeat offenses are punished more harshly.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.