View full case

FLORENCIA M. SOMOSOT v. ATTY. ELIAS A. PONTEVEDRA

FACTS:

Complainant Florencia Somosot filed a verified complaint against respondent Atty. Elias Pontevedra for neglect of duty and professional misconduct. Complainant was one of the plaintiffs in a reconveyance and recovery of possession case before the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, with respondent as her counsel. The trial court ordered the parties to submit memoranda, but both counsels failed to comply. Complainant reminded respondent about the deadline, but he still did not file a memorandum. Instead, he allegedly entered into an oral agreement with the opposing counsel to forgo filing the memorandum. Complainant's daughter sent respondent a money order for the preparation of the memorandum, but respondent did not take any action on it. Complainant later discovered that the case had been submitted for decision without any memorandum. She requested the return of the money and an explanation from respondent, but he ignored her. Complainant then filed the instant case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent liable for breach of professional duties and recommended that he be reprimanded and warned. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the recommendation. The Court agreed with the IBP and reprimanded respondent, ordering him to return the money order to complainant's heirs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility in failing to file the required memorandum in Civil Case No. X-98.

  2. Whether respondent unlawfully kept the money order despite complainant's request for its return.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility in failing to file the required memorandum in Civil Case No. X-98. Respondent failed to exercise the diligence required of him as a lawyer in the performance of his duties. While it was impossible for him to prepare a memorandum without the necessary documents, respondent failed to inform the trial court of his agreement with the opposing counsel to submit the case without a memorandum. This omission needlessly compounded the long delay in the resolution of the case and caused anxiety to the complainant. Respondent's failure to inform the complainant of the status of her case further showed his negligence and violation of his ethical obligations.

  2. Yes, respondent unlawfully kept the money order despite complainant's request for its return. As a lawyer, respondent is required to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. He is also obligated to deliver such funds and property of his client when demanded. In this case, respondent received the money order as payment for services he was unable to render. He should have returned it when the complainant's daughter demanded it so that the complainant could ask for a refund from the post office.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and must serve them with competence and diligence. Failure to do so renders counsel liable for violating the canons of the legal profession.

  • Lawyers are required to keep their clients informed of the status of their cases and to respond to their requests for information within a reasonable time.

  • Lawyers should exert all efforts for the prosecution of their client's case until its final resolution.

  • Lawyers should give adequate attention, care, and time to their client's case once they agree to handle it.

  • Lawyers should hold in trust all money and property of their clients and deliver them when demanded.

  • Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are undertaken solely for the public welfare and do not involve private interests or afford redress for private grievances.