Rollon v Atty Naraval

Sometime in October of 2000 Consorcia Rollon went to the office of Atty. Naraval together with
is son Freddie Rollon to find assistance in a case filed against him. After giving over the documents
Rollon brought with him Atty. Naraval agreed to be his lawyer and required complainant to pay the
amount of P8,000 for filing and partial service fee. As per instruction of the respondent, Freddie Rollon,
complainants son, returned to his office the following week to follow up the said case, but respondent
was not able to act on the case because he was so busy. In September 2001 Rollon decided to withdraw
the amount he paid to Atty Naraval because of the latters failure to comply with the agreement.
Unfortunately, despite the several follow-ups Naraval always said that he cannot return the documents
because it was in his house, and cant pay the P8,000 because he has no money. So respondent refer the
matter to the IBP Davao.

Ruling: *In relation to CANON 15.5

The SC said that the respondent should have given the complainant Rollon a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and the status of the case. Apparently the case that was filled against the
complainant was decided against her (Rollon). In fact, the judgment had long become final and
executory. But the respondent withheld such vital information fron the complainant. Instead he
demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee and thereby gave her hope that her case would be acted
upon.
Jane Yu v. Renato Bondal

Complainant (Yu) engaged the service of respondent (Bondal) as her councel in five cases where
the former was the plaintiff. Complainant and respondent subsequently ad a retainer agreement
wherein Yu must pay P200,000 as acceptance fee for five cases and P1,500 per hearing. Yu filed a
complaint against respondent for gross negligence and violation of the CPR through the following
reasons; Respondent failed to file Jane Yus complaint against Swire Reality Development Corporation;
Yus estafa case against Fresnoza was dismissed, same with her complaint against Teh; respondent also
forced complainant to settle the other cases under unfair and unreasonable terms.

Ruling:

The office of the Bar Confidant recommended the dismissal of the complaints and finds no
probable cause to hold the respondent liable. Records show that the complainant who led to the
dismissal of some cases; this was because she failed to attach the original copies of the checks.

Litigants need to be reminded that lawyers, are not demi-gods or magicians who can always win
their cases for their clients no matter how the utter lack of merit of the same or how passionate the
litigants may feel about their cause.