Cantiller v. Potenciano

Complainant's sister Peregrina lost an ejectment case and a reconveyance case over the apartment they rented. After being served a notice to vacate, the sisters were introduced by a sheriff to Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano, who agreed to handle their case. He prepared a petition for annulment of judgment, and complainant said it was "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed". He promised a restraining order because the judge was his "katsukaran" (close friend), and charged P1,000. When that judge asked him to withdraw because of their friendship, he asked for P2,000 for another judge who would issue the restraining order; the sisters gave P1,000 and a US$10 bill. He then required P10,000 as a supposed deposit with the Pasig Treasurer's Office and P1,000 for expenses, and filed a second case. Four days before the injunction hearing, he moved to withdraw as counsel, citing hemorrhoids, without finding a replacement. No injunction issued and the sisters were evicted. Complainant learned no deposit was needed or made. Her demand for the P11,000 went unanswered, and both cases were later dismissed.

1. 1Whether Potenciano failed in his duty of diligence and fidelity to his client
2. 2Whether he deceived the complainant to obtain money
3. 3What penalty is proper

Yes, he was guilty of the charges. "When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion." He knew beforehand that the judge would ask him to withdraw, and he later moved to withdraw himself, yet he neither found a replacement nor told his client to hire one. This was inconsistent with his duty to protect his client's interest with utmost dedication (Canon 17), especially as his gross negligence cost her all her cases. Filing a second case on the same day he moved to withdraw from the first, and then not appearing in it, showed bad faith: "It was all a show to get more money from her." Telling her the new case was urgent when he knew he could not handle it was deception. His claim that the P10,000 was his fee was "simply incredible" and grossly disproportionate to the service rendered (Canon 22), and his failure to return any of it on demand confirmed his unfitness. The Court found "The pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious," and held that lawyers must be "fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients." Disposition: Potenciano was suspended from the practice of law indefinitely until he shows he has rehabilitated himself. He was also ordered to return P11,000 to complainant with legal interest from the date of the resolution.