Legal Ethics

Dominador Burbe vs Atty. Alberto Magulta

image_printPrint this!

A.C. No. 99-634 – 432 Phil. 840 – 383 SCRA 276 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer-Client Relationship – When does it start

In September 1998, Dominador Burbe went to the law office of Atty. Alberto Magulta to avail of his legal services. Atty. Magulta rendered legal advice and even wrote demand letters for Burbe. When the demand letters were unheeded, Atty. Magulta advised Burbe to file a complaint against the opposing party. Atty. Magulta drafted the complaint. In January 1999, Burbe deposited to the law office Php25k for the filing fee. A receipt as issued to him by the law firm’s secretary. One week later, Atty. Magulta advised him that the complaint has been filed.

Several weeks passed but Burbe did not receive any update from Atty. Magulta. In May 1999, Atty. Magulta told Burbe that the delay in the case is caused by the court staff not acting on the complaint. Burbe however obtained a certification from the court that Atty. Magulta never filed any complaint for him. As a result, Burbe filed a disbarment case against Magulta.

In his answer, Atty. Magulta averred that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Burbe because 1) Burbe did not pay him for his services; that the receipt for the Php25k was erroneously issued by the law firm secretary, and 2) he merely accommodated Burbe as a favor to his law firm partner who is a kumpadre of Burbe.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Magulta is administratively liable.

HELD: Yes. After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the former’s business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service had been sought.

Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the lawyer’s fees. Hence, despite the fact that Burbe was a kumpadre of a law partner of Atty. Magulta, and that Atty. Magulta dispensed legal advice to Burbe as a personal favor to the kumpadre, Atty. Magulta was duty-bound to file the complaint he had agreed to prepare – and had actually prepared – at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the Burbe’s interest.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply