A.C. No. 12446 - ROSALINA TAGHOY, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. CONSTANTINE TECSON III.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, complainants asked Atty. Tecson to refund the P71,000.00 and the P5,000.00 which they paid to him. Atty. Tecson refused to refund the amount, which prompted the complainants to file the instant disbarment case. In its Report and Recommendation , [5] the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found that Atty. Tecson disregarded his duty to his client in violation of Canon 18, Rules 18.01, 18.02, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he did not file the necessary pleadings in the ejectment and annulment of title cases. [6] The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Tecson be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. [7] On September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD's recommendation but modified the suspension from one (1) year to two (2) years and ordered Atty. Tecson to return the P76,000.00 paid by the complainants. [8] Atty. Tecson moved for reconsideration. He manifested that he already "patched-up" with the complainants and voluntarily returned the P76,000.00. Atty. Tecson claimed that his professional service was limited to the filing of the annulment of Rayos' TCT and did not include the representation of complainants in the ejectment case. However, he still represented the complainants because they need help during those times. Atty. Tecson explained that he failed to file the necessary pleadings and attend the hearing because of his workload and personal problems. On August 31, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors partly granted Atty. Tecson's motion and issued an extended Resolution. [9] The IBP reduced the suspension to one (1) year, which it deemed commensurate to the infraction committed, and deleted the order to return the P76,000.00 after finding that Atty. Tecson already returned the amount to complainants. Thereafter, the records of this case were transmitted to this court for review. RULING We adopt the IBP Board of Governor's findings but modify the penalty. Lawyers are not obliged to advocate for every person who requests to be their client. [10] However, once they agree to take up the client's cause, they owe fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to them. [11] Lawyers who undertake an action are expected to attend to their client's cause until it becomes final and executory. [12] Atty. Tecson failed to measure up to these standards. He neglected to file his clients' position paper and appeal memorandum in the ejectment case. In Canoy v. Atty. Ortiz , [13] we held that the lawyer's failure to file the necessary pleading is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the CPR, [14] which requires that " a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable ." [15] Concomitant with this duty is Canon 17, which provides that " a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidenc