Scribd
Upload
322 views2 pages

Reyes V Vitan

Carlos Reyes filed an administrative complaint against attorney Jeremias Vitan for gross negligence. Reyes hired and paid Vitan P17,000 to file a case, but Vitan failed to take any action on the case. The IBP found that Vitan ignored orders, failed to submit documents, and did nothing to handle Reyes' case despite being paid. The Supreme Court ruled that Vitan violated his duties to his client by neglecting the case after accepting payment. Vitan was suspended from practice for 6 months and ordered to return the P17,000 payment with interest to Reyes.

Uploaded by

Carey Antipuesto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
322 views2 pages

Reyes V Vitan

Carlos Reyes filed an administrative complaint against attorney Jeremias Vitan for gross negligence. Reyes hired and paid Vitan P17,000 to file a case, but Vitan failed to take any action on the case. The IBP found that Vitan ignored orders, failed to submit documents, and did nothing to handle Reyes' case despite being paid. The Supreme Court ruled that Vitan violated his duties to his client by neglecting the case after accepting payment. Vitan was suspended from practice for 6 months and ordered to return the P17,000 payment with interest to Reyes.

Uploaded by

Carey Antipuesto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CARLOS B. REYES vs. ATTY. JEREMIAS R.

VITAN
[A.C. No. 5835. April 15, 2005.]
Case:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment led by Carlos Reyes against
Atty. Jeremias Vitan for gross negligence.
The complaint alleges that sometime in June 2001, complainant Carlos Reyes hired
the services of respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan for the purpose of ling the
appropriate complaint or charge against his sister-in-law, Estelita Reyes, and the
latter's niece, Julieta P. Alegonza; that both women refused to abide with the
Decision of Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila,
in Civil Case No. 99-92657 ordering the partition of the properties left by
complainant's brother Damaso B. Reyes; and that respondent, after receiving the
amount of P17,000.00, did not take any action on complainant's case.
Findings of the IBP Board of Governors:
". . . . After going over the evidence on record, the undersigned noted that
respondent ignored all the Orders issued by this Commission and neither did
he comply with any of those Orders. Respondent even failed to submit the
responsive pleadings he himself requested in his motion and only sent his
assistant secretary to represent him in the scheduled hearings of this case.
Up to and until the present, no pleadings was submitted despite respondent's
allegations that he was collating evidence to prove his side of the case.
It was complainant who submitted the supposed letters of the respondent
Estelita Reyes and Juliet Alegonza but there were no proofs when they sent
and when the same were received by the addressee.
Likewise, the complaint submitted by the complainant was only a format in
the sense that it was not signed by the respondent; the RTC Branch No. was
left blank; there was no Civil Case No. and there was no proof that said
pleading was led which amounts only to a mere scrap of paper and not a
pleading or authenticated document in the legal parlance.
As it is, nothing had been done by the respondent for the complainant as his
client for the legal fees he collected which was paid by the complainant as
reected in the receipts issued by the respondent in handwritten forms and
signed by him.
Respondent not only violated Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of Cannon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for having neglected a legal matter entrusted to
him and did not inform complainant the status of his case but also
disregarded the orders of the Commission without reasons which amounted
to utter disrespect of authority and unethical conduct in the practice of his
profession, thus, should be sanctioned.
SCs ruling

When respondent accepted the amount of P17,000.00 from complainant, it was


understood that he agreed to take up the latter's case and that an attorney-client
relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of him to
serve his client, herein complainant, with competence and attend to his cause with
delity, care and devotion.
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 of Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. More specically, Rule
18.03 states: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine
interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. An attorney is
expected to exert his best eorts and ability to preserve his client's cause, for the
unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. Verily,
the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not
only to the client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.
Signicantly, respondent also violated his oath as a lawyer, which declares in part,
that he will not delay any man for money or malice and will conduct himself as a
lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good delity
as well to the courts as to his client.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is hereby declared guilty of
violation of Canon 18 of the CPR and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months eective upon notice of this Decision. He is ordered to
return to complainant within ve (5) days from notice the sum of P17,000.00 with
interest of 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of this Decision until
the full amount shall have been returned.

You might also like