A.C. No. 11482 - JOCELYN IGNACIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DANIEL T. ALVIAR.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned recommends that respondent be meted out with the penalty of suspension for six (6) months from the practice of law and ordered to restitute the amount of One Hundred Thousand (Php100,000) Pesos to the complainant. Respectfully Submitted. [20] Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines On February 25, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXII-2016-178 [21] lowering the recommended penalty to reprimand with stem warning, thus: RESOLVED to ADOPT with modification the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner reducing the penalty to REPRIMAND WITH STERN WARNING. [22] Pursuant to Rule 139-B, the records of the administrative case were transmitted by the IBP to the Court for final action. Complainant further seeks a review [23] of the Resolution No. XXII-2016-178 dated February 25, 2016. The Issue The threshold issue to be resolved is whether respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of complainant's son. The Ruling of the Court The Court affirms the Resolution No. XXII-2016-178 dated February 25, 2016 of the IBP Board of Governors, reducing the recommended penalty from six months to reprimand with stem warning. However, on the undisputed factual finding that respondent only performed preparatory legal services for complainant's son, he is not entitled to the entire PhP100,000 but only to fees determined on the basis of quantum meruit , Section 24, Rule 138, and Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the CPR and that the remainder should be restituted to complainant. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. [24] Canon 18 [25] of the CPR mandates that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is the lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. In Voluntad-Ramirez v. Atty. Bautista [26] , the Court citing Santiago v. Fojas [27] expounds: It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of [his] client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of the law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to as