A.C. No. 10541 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3046) - AURORA AGUILAR­-DYQUIANGCO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DIANA LYNN M. ARELLANO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, he recommends that the Respondent be meted with the penalty of SUSPENSION for a period of one (1) year. [38] In a Resolution dated March 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dated September 28, 2012 which states: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification , the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in 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 considering that Respondent violated Canon 16, Rule 16.02 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Diana Lynn M. Arellano is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years . [39] Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 16, 2013, [40] which was subsequently denied through a Resolution dated March 21, 2014. [41] In view of the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, the case was referred to this Court En Banc . The Court's Ruling After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, we find no cogent reason not to adopt the factual findings of the Investigating Commissioner as approved by the IBP Board of Governors. However, we reduce the penalty for the reasons to be discussed below. First Cause of Action Respondent violated Canon 18 when she failed to file the collection case in court. In this regard, Canon 18 of the CPR mandates, thus: A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 thereof emphasizes that: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In Reyes v. Vitan , [42] this Court held that the failure of a lawyer to file a complaint with the court in behalf of his client, despite receiving the necessary fees from the latter, is a violation of the said canon and rule: The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainant's case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states: "Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not o