A.C. No. 12072 - NAPOLEON S. QUITAZOL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. HENRY S. CAPELA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding Respondent Atty. Henry S. Capela guilty of Violating Canon 18, 18.03, Canon 7, and Canon 11 x x x of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby recommended to be suspended for a period of six (6) months and to order him to return the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]200,000.00) the value of the car which was given to him by the complainant within thirty (30) days and with a warning that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED[.] [20] On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution that adopted and approved the findings of administrative liability, but modified the recommended penalty of suspension, from six months, to three years. [21] Atty. Capela then filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration, denying that he served as counsel to Napoleon. Atty. Capela admitted that a retainer agreement, with Napoleon was drafted, but claimed that he did not receive a signed copy of the agreement nor any motor vehicle as payment for his legal services. Moreover, the complaint has no longer a leg to stand on, since Napoleon, through his substitute, issued an affidavit withdrawing the administrative case. [22] Anent the finding that he was guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, Atty. Capela claimed that he was unaware of the complaint against him because he was no longer holding office at Makati City, where all the notices were sent. He was only apprised of the complaint when one Pacita Cala informed him of the assailed IBP Resolution. [23] The IBP Board of Governors denied Atty. Capela's motion for reconsideration. [24] RULING OF THE COURT We adopt the conclusion and findings of the IBP, but modify the penalty imposed. There is an attorney-client relationship between Napoleon and Atty. Capela. It cannot be overemphasized that the practice of law is a profession. It is a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral character. [25] When a lawyer agrees to act as a counsel, he guarantees that he will exercise that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client's interests, and take all steps, or do all acts necessary. [26] Thus, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote their full attention, skill and competence to their cases, regardless of their importance, and whether they accept them for a fee, or for free. [27] In this case, the legal service of Atty. Capela was engaged by Napoleon to handle a civil case before the RTC of Alaminos City, Pangasinan. Atty. Capela entered his appearance as Napoleon's counsel, moved for extension of time, and filed an answer. Atty. Capela's contention, that he did not receive a copy of the signed retainer agreement to prove an attorney-client relationship, is not credible. He would not have unde