A.C. No. 12025, June 20, 2018 demand letter.

Respondent then presented to

Antonio the deed of extrajudicial settlement
EDMUND and waiver of rights in favor of the
BALMACEDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO complainant, as well the latter's certificate of
Z. USON, Respondent. title over the property, and the deed of
absolute sale in favor of Agapito and his wife.
Antonio was taken aback upon learning of the
RESOLUTION documents and told the respondent that they
are going to take legal action as they were co-
REYES, JR., J.: owners of the property and that it is better for
him not to meddle into the feud. He
This is an administrative complaint for immediately informed the complainant of the
disbarment filed by Edmund Balmaceda incident as well as the threat hurled by Antonio
(complainant) against respondent Atty. Romeo to take matters to court He then offered to
Z. Uson (respondent) for violating Rules 16 and return the amount of P75,000.00 given to him
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. as attorney's fees but the complainant refused
to accept the amount and insisted on the filing
of the ejectment case. For several times, the
The complainant alleged that sometime in April complainant went to his office to insist on the
2012, he and a certain Carlos Agapito (Agapito) filing of the case but he repeatedly told him he
went to the office of the respondent to seek can no longer proceed with the same especially
legal advice, concerning the supposed intrusion that the supposed co-owners of the property
or illegal occupation of his brother, Antonio expressed the intention to file an action for the
Balmaceda (Antonio), over a property he annulment of title, deed of extrajudicial
owned, which he subsequently sold to Agapito. settlement and deed of sale against the
At the conclusion of their meeting, complainant complainant and Agapito. He offered to return
and Agapito were convinced that the filing of the money paid to him as attorney's fees but
an ejectment case is the most appropriate the complainant refused and threatened to file
legal measure to take and engaged the an administrative case against him. Not long
services of the respondent as counsel for a fee thereafter, the complainant filed the instant
of P75,000.00.1 The said attorney's fees were disbarment case. Respondent, however,
paid in full to the respondent as evidenced by a maintained that he did not violate his oath as a
receipt2 signed by the latter. lawyer nor the Code of Professional
Responsibility and prayed that the complaint
Despite the full payment of the attorney's fees, be dismissed.7
the respondent did not file an ejectment case
against Antonio. The complainant visited the During the preliminary mandatory conference,
respondent several times to follow up on his the attorney-in-fact of the complainant, Emily
case but the latter would always tell him he Bendero (Bendero) and the respondent
was already working on the same. Two years manifested that the latter offered to return a
had lapsed, however, but no ejectment case portion of the attorney's fees in the amount of
was ever filed by the respondent. Thus, in P50,000.00 and that the former accepted the
February 2014, he sent the respondent a same as full settlement of the claim. They
demand letter3 for the return of the attorney's likewise expressed in writing their mutual
fees of P75,000.00 which he paid him but the desire to terminate the case. Considering,
latter refused to receive the same. He sent him however, that mere settlement among the
another demand letter4 to refund him the parties does not automatically result in the
amount but still the respondent refused to dismissal of the complaint, the parties were
heed. The unjustified refusal of the respondent still ordered to submit their respective verified
to return the amount paid as attorney's fees position papers. 8 Notwithstanding this order, it
culminated in the filing of the instant was only the respondent who submitted his
disbarment complaint against him.5 position paper.9

In his Verified Answer with Positive and

Affirmative Defenses,6 the respondent denied
the pertinent allegations in the complaint. He
alleged that upon receipt of the attorney's fees, The IBP's Findings
he immediately sent a demand letter to
Antonio, asking him to vacate the subject In his Report and Recommendation10 dated
property. Forthwith, Antonio confronted him June 28, 2015, IBP Investigating Commissioner
about the veracity of the claims stated in the Oscar Leo S. Billena of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP- Rule 18.03- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
CBD) found that no substantial evidence was matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
presented to prove the allegations in the connection therewith shall render him liable.
complaint and thus recommended the
dismissal of the disbarment complaint. The Further, in Spouses Jonathan and Ester Lopez
dispositive portion of the report reads as vs. Atty. Stnamar E. Limos Lopez vs. Limos,17 it
follows: was stressed, thus:

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client,
hereby recommended that the herein he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
complaint for disbarment be dismissed.11 competence, and to attend to such client's
cause with diligence, care, and devotion
On October 28, 2015, the Board of Goven1ors whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He
of the IBP issued Resolution No. XXII-2015- owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
65,12reversing the recommendation of the mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
investigating commissioner, thus: upon him. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a
legal matter entrusted to him by his client
RESOLVED to REVERSE the findings of facts constitutes inexcusable negligence for which
and the recommended dismissal by the he must be held administratively liable.18
investigating Commissioner, adopting the
recommendation of the Commission on Bar In the instant case, the respondent reneged on
Discipline imposing a penalty of 6 months his duty when he failed to file the ejectment
suspension against Atty. Romeo Z. Uson case on behalf of the complainant despite full
pursuant to previous Supreme Court decisions payment of his attorney's fees. His negligence
in similar cases.13 caused his client to lose his cause of action
since the prescriptive period of one year to file
On March 3, 2016, the respondent filed a the ejectment case had already lapsed without
motion for reconsideration14 but the Board of him filing the necessary complaint in court.
Governors denied the same in its Resolution
No. XXII-2017-1146,15 disposing as follows: Respondent, however, claimed that it was an
exercise of good judgment on his part not to
RESOLVED to DENY the Motion for file the case considering the circumstances
Reconsideration there being no new reason surrounding the ownership of the disputed
and/or new' argument adduced to reverse the property. He averred that when he sent a
previous findings and decision of the Board of demand letter to Antonio and the other
Governors.16 occupants of the property, he was informed
that the complainant acquired the title through
fraudulent means and that they plan to
Ruling of this Court institute a civil action against the complainant.

The Court sustains the recommendation of the The respondent's excuse fails to convince.
Board of Governors of the IBP.
Before respondent was engaged as counsel, he
It needless to emphasize that at the very had a discussion with the complainant about
moment a lawyer agrees to be engaged as a his legal concern and had a good opportunity
counsel, he is obliged to handle the same with to examine the documents presented to him by
utmost diligence and competence until the his prospective client. When he agreed to be
conclusion of the case. He is expected to exert the counsel of the complainant, it only means
his time and best efforts in order to assist his that, based on the discussion and documents,
client in his legal predicament. Neglecting a he believed that complainant had a cause of
legal cause renders him accountable under the action to file an ejectment case. He signified
Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, his approval to the filing of the ejectment case
under Rule 18.03 thereof, which states: when he accepted the case and the
corresponding fees thereto as in fact the
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS acknowledgment receipt19 for the said payment
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. states that it is in full satisfaction of his
attorney's fees for the filing of the ejectment
xxxx case. To state the pertinent portion, viz.:
RECEIVED the amount of SEVENTY FIVE let his client lose his case without the merits
THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS, Philippine thereof being submitted to the fair deliberation
Currency, from EDMUND AUSTRIA and disposal of the court.
[BALMACEDA], as and for full payment of
Attorney's Fees in Ejectment Case, Re: In Nebreja vs. Reonal,20 the Court reiterated the
SPS. CARLOS J. AGAPITO and DOLORES CARIÑO strict command for lawyers to diligently and
AGAPITO VS. ANTONIO AUSTRIA BALMACEDA of competently protect their client's causes, thus:
Sitio Lecor, Barangay Poblacion Norte, Paniqui,
Tarlac.
This Court has consistently held, in construing
this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to
Paniqui, Tarlac, April 16, 2012. (Emphasis ours) perform the obligations due to the client is
considered per se a violation. Thus, a lawyer
That the occupants of the property claimed was held to be negligent when he failed to do
that they also have a right to possess the same anything to protect his client's interest after
and that they intend to bring the matter to receiving his acceptance fee. In another case,
court are not compelling reasons to prevent this Court has penalized a lawyer for failing to
the respondent from filing the ejectment case. inform the client of the status of the case,
After all, they are free to pursue legal remedies among other matters. In another instance, for
to protect their own interest. What should have failure to take the appropriate actions in
merited respondent's greater consideration is connection with his client's case, the lawyer
the fact that the complainant is his client and was suspended from the practice of law for a
his earlier assessment that he has a cause of period of six months and was required to
action for ejectment. In any case, whoever may render accounting of all the sums he received
have the better title or right to possess the from his client.21
property will depend on the appreciation of the
trial court. Further, in Reyes vs. Vitan,22 it was held that
"the act of receiving money as acceptance fee
Respondent cannot sway this Court by alleging for legal services in handling complainant's
that the occupants, in fact, filed an action for case and subsequently failing to render such
annulment of the complainant's title to the services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the
property, even submitting a photocopy of the Code of Professional Responsibility."23
said complaint to be part of the records of the
case. He may have thought this would pass as That the respondent eventually returned
a convenient excuse to validate his claim that a portion of the money to the complainant and
there was a good reason for not filing the case both have signified consent to the termination
but the circumstances and evidence he of the case do not automatically exonerate him
submitted only highlighted his negligence. from administrative liability. Restitution may
Based on the records, he agreed to the filing of have earned him the condonation of his client
the ejectment case in April 16, 2012, which but, being a member of the Integrated Bar of
was the date stated in the receipt of the full the Philippines, he is also answerable to the
payment of his attorney's fees. On the other legal profession. Membership in the bar, being
hand, the complaint for annulment of title was imbued with public interest, holds him
filed by Antonio and his supposed co-heirs only accountable not only to his client but also to
on November 5, 2013, as stamped in the the court, the legal profession and the society
photocopy of the same. At that time, one year at large. He is thus expected to conduct
had already lapsed and therefore the himself according to the stringent standards of
complainant had already lost his cause of morality and competence imposed upon all
action for ejectment due to the respondent's members of the legal profession. After all,
failure to file the necessary complaint. Had membership in the bar is merely a privilege
respondent been prompt, the complainant which may be withdrawn, temporarily or
could have established his case in court. Plainly perpetually, from a lawyer who fails to live by
speaking, the respondent cannot justify his the tenets of professional responsibility.
negligence by claiming that the occupants
pursued their threat to file a case in court.
There is simply no connection between his duty Moreover, in Bautista vs. Bernabe,24 it was held
as counsel to the complainant with the that the "complainant's desistance or
supposed defendants' threat to retaliate with a withdrawal of the complaint does not
separate legal action. This should have even exonerate respondent or put an end to the
prompted him to be more vigilant in protecting administrative proceedings. A case of
his client's case but, as it was, he slacked and suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainant." The reason stems from the fact In Solidon vs. Macalalad,28 the respondent
that "disbarment cases are sui lawyer was imposed with the penalty of six (6)
generis."25 In Bautista, the Court elucidated, months suspension for failing to file a petition
thus: for registration of title over a certain property
after receipt of the acceptance fee of
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is P80,000.00. He also failed to promptly return
not a civil action where the complainant is a the money he received even after failing to
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a render legal services. Similarly, in Pariñas vs.
defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no Paguinto,29 the Court imposed the same
private interest and afford no redress for penalty upon the respondent lawyer for
private grievance. They are undertaken and violating Rule 18 of the Code of Professional
prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They Responsibility when he failed to file an
are undertaken for the purpose of preserving annulment case despite receipt of acceptance
courts of justice from the official ministration of fee and filing fees. Also, in Vda. De Enriquez
persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney vs. San Jose,30 the erring lawyer was meted the
is called to answer to the court for his conduct penalty of six (6) months of suspension for
as an officer of the court. The complainant or failing to file the appropriate civil case after
the person who called the attention of the sending a demand letter. Here, the Court
court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in declared that "the failure to file a pleading is by
no sense a party, and has generally no interest itself inexcusable negligence on the part of
in the outcome except as all good citizens may respondent."'31
have in the proper administration of justice. 26
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court
It is also well to remember that in Canon 16 of finds the imposition of the six (6) months of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, it is suspension on the respondent warranted under
provided that a lawyer only holds in trust all the circumstances.
moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. "The relationship WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Romeo Z.
between a lawyer and his client is highly Uson GUILTY of violating Rules 18.03 and
fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great 16.01 of the Code of Professional
fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED FOR
nature of this relationship imposes upon the SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law
lawyer the duty to account for the money or effective upon receipt of this decision, and is
property collected or received for or from his sternly warned that a repetition of the same or
client."27 similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

In the present case, it was established that the Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the
respondent collected his attorney's fees and Office of the Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of
thereafter neglected the complainant's case. the Philippines, the Public Information Office
While he offered an excuse for his non-filing of and the Office of the Court Administrator
the complaint for ejectment, the same was not for circulation to all courts. Likewise, a
an acceptable reason for failing to perform the Notice of Suspension shall be prominently
agreed legal services. Moreover, he failed to posted in the Supreme Court website as a
promptly return the money he received as notice to the general public.
acceptance fees as it took him more than two
(2) years, or after the filing of the instant The respondent, upon receipt of this resolution
administrative case, to refund the complainant shall forthwith be suspended from the practice
of the amount paid for services not rendered. of law and shall formally manifest to this Court
that his suspension has started. He shall
To be clear, the mere forgiveness, desistance furnish all courts and quasi-judicial bodies
or acquiescence of the client to the dismissal of where he has entered his appearance a copy of
the administrative proceedings will not ipso this manifestation.
facto absolve the lawyer from liability but by
establishing that no misconduct or negligence SO ORDERED.
was committed. In this case where the
respondent admitted to receiving attorney's
fees and failing to file a complaint for
ejectment even after the lapse of two (2) years,
the imposition of an administrative sanction is
only proper.