A.C. No. 9161 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-1925] - MARIE JUDY BESA­-EDELMAIER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RESTITUTO M. AREVALO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, this Court finds it judicious to sustain the IBP Board of Governors' finding that respondent should be held administratively liable for his acts. A lawyer's relationship with his client is highly fiduciary and is anchored on the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Clearly falling short of what is expected of him as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court, respondent in this case is answerable not just to his client, but also to the Court, his profession, and the public in general. Nevertheless, the Court finds the penalty of disbarment as recommended by the IBP too severe and harsh under the circumstances. While administrative cases against members of the bar are sui generis , case law is replete with instances where lawyers' commission of similar acts against their clients warranted a suspension and not disbarment. In Rollon v. Naraval , [46] the Court suspended the respondent-lawyer from the practice of law for two years for failing to render any legal service even after receiving money from the complainant and for failing to return the money and documents he received. The same sanction was imposed in Small v. Banares , [47] where the respondent-­lawyer committed a failure to file a case for which he received from his client the amount of P80,000.00. In Jinon v. Jiz, [48] the Court suspended the delinquent lawyer, likewise, for two years for failing to perform what was needed of him by the client. In Segovia - Ribaya v. Lawsin, [49] a lawyer was suspended for one year for his failure to perform his obligations under a retainership agreement with his client. Finally, in Go v. Buri , [50] the Court suspended the erring lawyer for a period of two years for his negligence in handling his client's affairs. Therewithal, the Court finds it proper to consider the following circumstances in the determination of the appropriate penalty: first , this is respondent's first infraction, at least on record; second , respondent had actually reimbursed the entire amount which he received from complainant, albeit late in the day; and third , complainant seemed to have abandoned her administrative case against respondent after receiving the money from respondent, as evinced by her failure to participate in any meaningful manner in the proceedings before the Court. In pr é cis, this Court finds and so holds that given the factual milieu of the case, a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years is justified. WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Restituto M. Arevalo is hereby found GUILTY of violation of Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS, effective immediately upon his receipt of this Decision . He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Respondent is hereby DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable it t