You are on page 1of 1

ROLLON v NARAVAL to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost

devotion.
FACTS:
ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty
against her (Collection of Sum of Money. After going of fidelity to a client‘s cause. And every case accepted
through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
ROLLON‘S lawyer and required her to pay P8,000 as competence.
filing and partial service fee. As per instruction of ATTY
NARAVAL, ROLLON‘S SON returned to his office to Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may
follow up however ATTY NARAVAL told the SON that cases as they can efficiently handle. Otherwise, their
he was not able to act on the case because he was clients would be prejudiced.
busy.

In the case at bar, records show that after receiving


After several follow ups and still no action, ROLLON P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal
decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY service to ROLLON and despite ROLLON‘S repeated
NARAVAL for failure of the latter to comply with their demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of
mutual agreement. the case that had been entrusted to him and kept the
money ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him
ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the
documents because the same were in his house and Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY
the P8,000 paid by NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid opinion
ROLLON because he has no money. ROLLON decided on the merits and status of the case. Apparently, the
to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City. civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her
and had long become final executory. However, ATTY
NARAVAL withheld such vital information from
INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year ROLLON and even demanded P8,000 as filing and
for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and service fee giving her hope that her case would
18. be acted upon.

Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule


IBP BOARD OF GOVERNOR‘S RESOLUTION: suspend for 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of
2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18 and Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED
restitution of P8,000 from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
ISSUE: Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE, within
W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision,
REPRIMANDED complainant‘s eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus
interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum,
HELD: YES, FOR VIOLATION OF RULE from October 18, 2000, until fully paid
15.05 AND CANONS 16, 17 & 18

RATIO:
Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as
advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish
to become their client. They may decline employment
and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in
a position to carry it out effectively and competently.
But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are
required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility