A.C. No. 12025 - EDMUND BALMACEDA, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ROMEO Z. USON.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the herein complaint for disbarment be dismissed. [11] On October 28, 2015, the Board of Goven1ors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XXII-2015-65, [12] reversing the recommendation of the investigating commissioner, thus: RESOLVED to REVERSE the findings of facts and the recommended dismissal by the investigating Commissioner, adopting the recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline imposing a penalty of 6 months suspension against Atty. Romeo Z. Uson pursuant to previous Supreme Court decisions in similar cases. [13] On March 3, 2016, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration [14] but the Board of Governors denied the same in its Resolution No. XXII-2017-1146, [15] disposing as follows: RESOLVED to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration there being no new reason and/or new' argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors. [16] Ruling of this Court The Court sustains the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the IBP. It needless to emphasize that at the very moment a lawyer agrees to be engaged as a counsel, he is obliged to handle the same with utmost diligence and competence until the conclusion of the case. He is expected to exert his time and best efforts in order to assist his client in his legal predicament. Neglecting a legal cause renders him accountable under the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, under Rule 18.03 thereof, which states: CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. xxxx Rule 18.03- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Further, in Spouses Jonathan and Ester Lopez vs. Atty. Stnamar E. Limos Lopez vs. Limos , [17] it was stressed, thus: 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. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable. [18] In the instant case, the respondent reneged on his duty when he failed to file the ejectment case on behalf of the complainant despite full payment of his attorney's fees. His negligence caused his client to lose his cause of action since the prescriptive period of one year to file the ejectment case had already lapsed without him filing the necessary complaint in court. Respondent, however, claimed that it was an exercise of good judgment on his part not to file the case considering the circumstances surrounding the ownership of the disputed property. He averred that when he sent a demand letter to Antonio and the other occupants of the property, he w