A.C. NO. 6597 - EDUARDO M. DIZON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO S. LAURENTE. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with warning. On July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed and approved Resolution No. XVI-2004-370, [9] adopting and approving Commissioner San Juan's report, but recommended that the penalty of one-year suspension from the practice of law be reduced to three (3) months, thus: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification , the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for respondent's violation of Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which seriously prejudiced the interest of his client for filing an erroneous appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-98-36056 and by his failure to take any action regarding the resolution of the Court of Appeals, consequently, the same became final and executory, Atty. Francisco S. Laurente is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a Warning that a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely." [10] (Underscoring supplied). which Resolution was transmitted to the Court via a covering letter dated September 1, 2004. We agree with the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides as follows: CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE xxx xxx xxx Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Time and again, the Court has reminded lawyers of the exacting demands of the legal profession and what is expected of them. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. He must ever be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the clients. An attorney's duty to safeguard the client's interests commences from his retainer until his effective release from the case or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation. During that period, he is expected to take such reasonable steps and such ordinary care as his client's interests may require. [11] Else, he violates Canon 18 of the Code. [12] Corollary to the lawyer's duty of fidelity to the cause of his client is his duty to serve with competence, diligence and zeal. No less than his entire devotion to the interest of his client and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability are expected of him to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. [13] It is precisely for this reason why a practicing lawyer is cautioned against accepting cases he can hardly handle. And certainly not to be overlooked is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of t