A.C. No. 8826 - SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended that he be: ( a ) meted with the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months; and ( b ) directed to return the amount of P55,000.00 to complainant. [8] The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant indeed engaged respondents services for the purpose of reconstituting four (4) titles as well as preparing the Deed, and that the latter received legal fees in connection therewith. Despite this, respondent did not perform his undertaking in accordance with the engagement and likewise failed to return complainants money despite demands. The foregoing acts were deemed to be in violation of the lawyers oath, as well as the CPR, thus, rendering respondent administratively liable for the same. However, in view of respondents old age, his condition of having undergone a triple heart bypass surgery, and considering that this is his first offense, the Investigating Commissioner opted to mitigate the administrative penalties imposed upon respondent. [9] In a Resolution [10] dated May 11, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the aforesaid Report and Recommendation, with modification decreasing the recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months. On motion for reconsideration [11] of respondent, his period of suspension was further decreased to one (1) month in a Resolution [12] dated May 3, 2014. To date, respondent has not filed a petition for review before the Court. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of. The Courts Ruling After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the findings and recommendations of the IBP. It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such clients cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. [13] Therefore, a lawyers neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18of the CPR, [14] which reads: CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. x x x x x x x x x Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. x x x x x x x x x As correctly pointed out by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, complainant engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of titling and/or reconstituting the titles to the real estate properties of the late Bernabe Olayta, as well as preparing the Deed, and in connection therewith, allegedly gave various amounts to respondent, of which the latter admitted the receip