A.C. NO. 5835 - CARLOS B. REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN.

Ruling

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the respondent be suspended from the practice of his profession for a period of two (2) years from receipt hereof; and refund to the complainant the amount of P17,000.00 paid to him for not having extended his legal services to the complainant on a lawyer-client relationship within six (6) months from receipt hereof." On August 3, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-406 adopting and approving the above Report and Recommendation of IBP Commissioner Navarro. When respondent accepted the amount of P17,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter's case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of him to serve his client, herein complainant, with competence and attend to his cause with fidelity, care and devotion. The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainant's case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states: "Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. [4] An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. In Santos vs. Lazaro , [5] we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility , above-quoted, is a basic postulate in legal ethics. Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. [6] Significantly, respondent also violated his oath as a lawyer, which declares in part, that he will not delay any man for money or malice and will conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his client. However, the recommended penalty by the IBP is too harsh. Jurisprudence shows that lighter sanctions have been imposed for violations of this nature, taking into consideration the gravity of the offense and the necessity of preserving the integrity of th