A.C. No. 11323 - NICOLAS ROBERT MARTIN EGGER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. DURAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and ordered to return the amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from April25, 2014 to complainants. It was likewise recommended that respondent show compliance with such directives within thirty (30) days from the finality of the suspension order by the Court. [13] Essentially, the IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating Canon 18 of the CPR for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him ( i.e. , the filing of the petition for annulment of marriage), and Canon 16 of the same for his failure to hold in trust all the money he received from complainant. [14] In a Resolution [15] dated June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the aforesaid report and recommendation with modification deleting the imposition of legal interest. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR. The Court's Ruling A judicious perusal of the records reveals that sometime in January 2014, complainant and Reposo had already forged a lawyer-client relationship with respondent, considering that the latter agreed to file a petition for annulment of marriage in their behalf, and in connection therewith, received the aggregate amount of P100,000.00 representing legal fees. Case law instructs that a lawyer-client relationship commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to handle a client's case and accepts money representing legal fees from the latter, [16] as in this case. Respondent's contention that he only has a lawyer-client relationship with Reposo but not with her husband, the complainant, is belied by the letter [17] dated April 25, 2014 signed by no less than Reposo herself which shows that she and complainant jointly sought the services of respondent to work on their annulment case, but had to eventually withdraw therefrom on account of respondent's failure to render any actual legal service despite their agreement and payment of legal fees amounting to P100,000.00. 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 client's 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. [18] This is commanded by Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, which reads: CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. 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. However, respondent admittedly breached this duty when he failed to prepare, much less file, the appropriate pleading to initiate complainant and Reposo's case. before the proper court. Respondent's additional contention that his failure to file the