CANON 17

SOMOSOT V. PONTEVEDRA
QUISUMBING, J.
FACTS:

Complainant Florencia M. Somosot (now deceased) filed a verified

complaint against respondent Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra for neglect of duty
and for professional misconduct for unlawfully keeping money
belonging to her
Complainant was one of the plaintiffs for a case regarding reconveyance and
recovery of possession
Respondent was her counsel of record
The information allege that respondent (as well as the counsel for the
defendant) failed to submit he memorandum required by the trial court
such was necessary for the case had already been pending for 23 years
Since no one submitted, the trial court gave a 15-day extension, complainant
reminded respondent of such deadline, but he still failed to submit the
memorandum (he entered daw into an oral agreement with the counsel of
the opposing party na they wouldnt submit the required memoranda)
Around two years after that, complainants daughter gave respondent a
money order amounting to 1,000 pesos as payment for the preparation of the
memorandum
When complainant was told that the case was submitted for decision without
any memoranda, she asked respondent to return the money
Respondent ignored her request
Hence, this petition
Respondents excuse regarding his failure to submit the
memorandum: complainant had 2 lawyers, the other one is already
dead, such person had the notes he needed for the preparation of
the memorandum; unfortunately, such notes were lost; in addition to
that, he reasoned that his notes were borrowed by said lawyer, and
such were not returned to him
Before the commencement of the trial, complainant died, and thus, this case
was submitted to the Commission on Bar Discipline which recommended that
respondent be reprimanded and be warned
IBP affirmed the commissions recommendation

ISSUE: W/N RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY IN FAILING TO FILE THE REQUIRED MEMORANDUM AND FOR
KEEPING THE MONEY ORDER DESPITE COMPLAINANTS REQUEST FOR RETURN?
YES
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers owe
fidelity to the cause of their clients and must therefore be always mindful of the

trust and confidence reposed in them. Under Canon 18, they are mandated to serve
their clients with competence and diligence.
In this case, respondent failed to exercise that degree of diligence required of him in
the performance of his duties. While it was impossible for him to prepare a
memorandum without the transcripts of stenographic notes and his case folder, and
while respondent may have been constrained simply to enter into an agreement
with the opposing counsel to submit the case for decision without memorandum,
respondent failed to inform the trial court of said agreement. He should have filed a
manifestation before the trial court informing it of the agreement instead of leaving
the trial court waiting and wondering whether said memoranda will be filed at all.
His omission not only gave complainant much anxiety, it also needlessly
compounded the long delay in the resolution of the 23-year-old case. Worse,
respondent did not inform complainant that the case had been submitted for
decision without memorandum despite complainants repeated requests for
information regarding the status of her case.

A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his clients case.
Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with
dedication and care. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification
to handle the legal matter

Respondent should also have accounted for the money order. Knowing his failure to
submit the required memorandum, respondent should have returned the money
order as it was issued to him in consideration of his supposed preparation of the
needed memorandum (See Canon 16).
RULING: REPRIMANDED AND WARNED (The court deemed it sufficient to impose
this penalty as there was no showing that respondent acted with malice, bad faith,
or motive..)