Camara v. Reyes

Facts:

Complainant engaged in the services of respondent to handle her case. Respondent received P50,000 as partial acceptance fee evidenced by a receipt placed on his calling card but no steps were taken to protect the complainant’s interest. Complainant asked the return of the amount given to respondent for repairing her house. Respondent promised to take charge of the repairs but he failed to fulfill his promise.

Issues:
Whether or not disbarment or suspension proceeding shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of resolution between complainant and respondent.
Whether or not the complainant violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code.

Held:

Respondent prayed that the case be closed because the matter has been resolved. However, IBP and the Court stated that as general rule, disbarment proceeding shall not be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute unless the Court motu proprio determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.

The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainant's case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Accordingly, respondent is suspended from practice of law for 6 months.