A.C. No. 11334 (CBD Case No. 11-3151) and A.C. No. 11335 (CBD Case No. 11-3182). January 07, 2019.
Jocelyn Sorensen, Complainant, vs. Atty. Florito T. Pozon, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jocelyn Sorensen engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Florito T. Pozon for four separate land titling matters between 1995 and 2003, paying a total of PhP 72,000.00. The cases involved the reconstitution or issuance of new titles for various lots in Cebu. In 2011, Sorensen filed administrative complaints before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging that Pozon neglected these cases and failed to inform her of their status, leaving the matters unresolved for years.
In his defense, Pozon admitted being her counsel but attributed the delays to the complainant’s own actions, such as her refusal to shoulder his travel expenses and her failure to produce necessary witnesses. The IBP-CBD found that despite these alleged client-side impediments, Pozon had a duty to diligently pursue the cases and, crucially, to communicate with his client about the status and necessary steps. The Commission noted that for two of the lots, legal services had been concluded, but matters for Lot No. 6651 (engaged in 2000) and Lot No. 2393-M (engaged in 2003) remained unresolved without satisfactory explanation or updates from the respondent.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Florito T. Pozon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through neglect of his client’s legal matters and failure to keep her informed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 18.03 mandates a lawyer to not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and Rule 18.04 requires him to keep the client informed of the status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to requests for information. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty of diligence and communication persists regardless of any challenges encountered in the case. Pozon’s failure to resolve the matters for Lot No. 6651 and Lot No. 2393-M over a period of eight to eleven years, coupled with his failure to apprise Sorensen of the developments or obstacles, constituted gross negligence and a breach of his professional obligations. His excuses regarding the client’s lack of cooperation did not absolve him; his duty was to advise her on the necessary actions and the consequences of inaction.
The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. Considering the gravity of the neglect spanning years, a mere admonition was insufficient. The Court suspended Atty. Pozon from the practice of law for one year. Furthermore, he was ordered to return PhP 21,000.00 to Sorensen, representing the fees for the two unresolved lots, with 6% interest per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid. The Court sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.