A.C. No. 8903. August 30, 2017
Edigardo V. Bondoc, Complainant, vs. Atty. Olimpio R. Datu, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Edigardo V. Bondoc engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Olimpio R. Datu in November 2006 to file a civil case for damages against John Paul Mercado arising from a vehicular accident. Bondoc paid Datu attorney’s fees totaling P25,000 in two installments and provided all necessary documents. For over a year, Datu gave Bondoc assurances about the case’s progress. Upon independent verification, Bondoc discovered no case had been filed. When confronted, Datu presented a letter inviting Mercado to a settlement conference and later claimed Mercado’s counsel informed him that Bondoc had already received a P500,000 settlement, which Bondoc denied, presenting a receipt for only P30,000. Bondoc demanded the return of his money, but Datu refused.
In his defense, Datu claimed he sent a demand letter to Mercado and was told by Mercado’s counsel about the alleged P500,000 settlement, which Bondoc had supposedly admitted. Datu argued he thus refrained from filing the case. He also claimed the legal fees were for other services. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Datu liable and recommended a one-month suspension and an order to refund P30,000.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Olimpio R. Datu violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent liable and modified the IBP’s penalty. The Court held that Datu violated Canon 17, which requires a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence, and Rule 18.03, Canon 18, which mandates a lawyer to keep the client informed of case status. By accepting a fee and documents but failing to file the case for over 18 months, and by relying on an unverified claim from the opposing party without securing proof, Datu exhibited gross negligence and a lack of fidelity to his client’s cause. This failure to act constituted abandonment of his professional duty.
Furthermore, Datu violated Rule 16.03, Canon 16, which obligates a lawyer to deliver a client’s funds upon demand. Having failed to render the contracted legal service, Datu had a clear duty to return the attorney’s fees. His refusal to do so warranted disciplinary action. The Court emphasized that the lawyer’s primary duty is to uphold the client’s interest with wholehearted fidelity. Accordingly, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Datu from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return the P25,000 to Bondoc with legal interest from the finality of the decision. A stern warning was issued against a repetition of the offense.