A.C. No. 12627 - LEILANI JACOLBIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JIMMY R. PANGANIBAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year at the discretion of the Board of Governors, with a warning that repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty. [15] The Investigating Commissioner opined that respondent fell short of the diligence required of a lawyer entrusted with a case, considering that he failed to carry complainant's case to its conclusion. Moreover, respondent's failure to return complainant's money despite demands and his false promises to pay manifested his willful and intentional refusal to perform his duty in accordance with his lawyer's oath. Finally, the Investigating Commissioner considered respondent's failure to file his answer and position paper as a separate offense meriting sanctions. [16] In a Resolution [17] dated May 19, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation, with modification increasing the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from one (1) year to three (3) years and imposing a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 for repeatedly ignoring the orders and processes of the IBP-CBD. It likewise directed the IBP-CBD to prepare an extended resolution explaining the Board of Governor's action. [18] In an Extended Resolution [19] dated December 11, 2018, the Investigating Commissioner stressed that respondent's acts of: ( a ) obtaining money for his legal services but failing to render the same; ( b ) failing to return complainant's money and relevant documents despite demands; and ( c ) failing to appear before the IBP-CBD and submit his answer, mandatory conference brief, and position paper, violated the CPR, particularly Canons 1, 2, 7, 17, and 18 thereof. [20] Thus, the Investigating Commissioner explained that the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation to increase the penalty from one (1) year to three (3) years was justified, considering the following aggravating circumstances: ( a ) respondent's acts were tainted with bad faith; ( b ) lack of remorse; and ( c ) failure to file answer and attend the mandatory conference. Moreover, the imposition of a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 was warranted, since respondent repeatedly ignored the orders and processes of the IBP-CBD. [21] The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of. The Court's Ruling The Court concurs and affirms the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. It is well to stress that every lawyer owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients. His duty to safeguard the clients' interests commences from his engagement as such, and lasts until his effective release by the clients. During that time, he is expected to take every reasonable step and exercise ordinary care as his clients' interests