A.C. No. 11323. September 14, 2016
Nicolas Robert Martin Egger, Complainant, vs. Atty. Francisco P. Duran, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nicolas Robert Martin Egger engaged the services of respondent Atty. Francisco P. Duran in January 2014 to file a petition for annulment of his marriage. As consideration, complainant deposited a total of P100,000.00 into respondent’s bank account in two tranches. Despite receiving payment, respondent neither prepared nor filed the promised petition. This led complainant to terminate the services due to loss of trust and confidence. Through his wife, complainant demanded the return of the P100,000.00. Respondent replied via letter, promising to return the money before the end of May 2014, but failed to do so. A subsequent demand from complainant’s new counsel also went unheeded, prompting the filing of this administrative case.
In his Answer, respondent denied a lawyer-client relationship with complainant, claiming his client was only the wife. He admitted receiving P100,000.00 and not filing the petition but argued this was due to the wife’s failure to pay the full P150,000.00 acceptance fee and to produce a psychiatric report. He attributed his failure to refund the money to financial losses from Typhoon Yolanda but expressed an intention to return the fee upon financial recovery. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent liable and recommended a six-month suspension and an order to return the P100,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found that a lawyer-client relationship was established when respondent agreed to handle the annulment case and accepted the P100,000.00 as legal fees. His contention that he only represented the wife is belied by a demand letter jointly signed by the complainant and his wife, indicating they both sought his services. Once a lawyer accepts a client’s cause, he is duty-bound to serve with competence and diligence under Canon 18 of the CPR. Rule 18.03 specifically mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Respondent’s admitted failure to prepare or file the necessary petition constitutes inexcusable negligence. His excuse regarding non-payment of the full fee does not justify abandoning the client’s cause, as his duty commences from retainer.
Furthermore, respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR concerning the handling of client funds. Rules 16.01 and 16.03 require a lawyer to hold in trust and account for all money received from a client, and to deliver the funds upon demand. His failure to return the P100,000.00 upon valid demand, despite his promise and the lack of any legal service rendered, is a clear breach. While his financial distress was noted, it does not exonerate him from his professional obligations. The Court affirmed the IBP’s modified recommendation. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months and ordered to return the P100,000.00 to complainant within ninety days from the finality of the decision.