Cabugao, Kristina DR.

CANON 19
Case: VALERIANA U. DALISAY, complainant, vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO,
JR., respondent. (A.C. No. 5655. January 23, 2006)

FACTS:
Valeriana U. Dalisay engaged respondents services as counsel in Civil
Case No. 00-044. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorneys fees,
respondent never rendered legal services. As a result, she terminated the
attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money, but
respondent refused. The Supreme Court in its Decision, found respondent
guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him from the
practice of law for a period of six months.
Upon learning of the Courts decision, respondent verified the status of
Civil Case No. 00-044. He learned of the trial courts Decision holding that the
tax declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official records.
Thereupon, respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against complainant
alleging that complainant offered tampered evidence. The respondent then filed
a motion for reconsideration for the Supreme Court Decision and argued that
complainant did not engage his services as counsel, and that complainant
offered tampered evidence in Civil Case No. 00-004, prompting him to file
falsification cases against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted.
HELD:
The respondents motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court
explained that once a lawyer accepts money from a client, an attorney-client
relationship is established. Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified
documentary evidence, it will not be sufficient to exonerate the respondent.
Consistent with the mandate of Canon 19 that a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law, Rule 19.02 of the same
Canon specifically provides that a lawyer who has received information that his
clients has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a
person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance
with the Rules of Court.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of
inaction, he should have confronted complainant and asked her to rectify her
fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate
his relationship with her.