A.C. NO. 6317 - LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations to protect the public and the legal profession from his kind, it is recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) months with a stern warning that similar acts in the future will be severely dealt with. [5] The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the investigating commissioner. [6] We agree with the findings of the IBP. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. [7] Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct [8] and are mandated to serve their clients with competence and diligence. [9] They shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this negligence in connection therewith shall render them liable. [10] Respondent's claim that the attorney's fee pertains only to the recovery of complainant's savings deposit from Planter's Development Bank cannot be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainant's counsel in the drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610. Respondent admitted that he explained the contents of the agreement to complainant before the latter affixed her signature. Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. [11] Respondent's disregard for his client's interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property; that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it. [12] As found by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she could still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his client's interests commences from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. [13] Respondent's admission [14] that he divided the legal fees with two other p